Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — UNITED KINGDOM AND EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21st July] :

That this House takes note of the White Paper entitled The United Kingdom and the European Communties (Command Paper No. 4715).—[The Prime Minister.]

Question again proposed.

11.5 a.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to concentrate chiefly on those matters which concern my Department. I shall be grateful, if, at the end of my speech, hon. Gentlemen will permit me some licence to range wider.
The previous Government made clear that they were willing to accept the general form of the common agricultural policy, and this is right and inevitable. The agricultural arrangements are a fundamental part of the Community. It would be unrealistic to think of changing the basic approach which the Six have taken. We may not like all of the common agricultural policy, but we have to recognise that our own agricultural support arrangements were beginning to creak at the joints and were in need of a change.
But the common agricultural policy involves problems for us, and I make no apology for mentioning some of these and for taking food prices first. Sometimes I think the country mixes up the problems of the common agricultural policy, which are much more to do with food than with farmers. This is a most important subject and it is a source of anxiety to many people, particularly

those on low or fixed incomes, but we must see things in perspective. There is still a great deal of misunderstanding. One of the basic misunderstandings is that, once we are in, the prices of food in our shops will rise to the same levels as those in this or that capital of the Six. Let us be clear. There is no policy of harmonising retail food prices in the Community and these vary considerably from country to country.
What joining the Community means is that gradually, over a period of years—not overnight—prices at the farm gate and at the port would gradually be raised towards the generally higher levels of the Community. What happened to prices at the retail stage would be a reflection of our system of marketing, processing and distribution and of our tastes and consumption patterns. In calculating what the likely effect of entry would be on our retail food prices we have taken all these factors fully into account and used the best available information. Having done so, we reached the conclusion set out in the White Paper ; namely, that the average annual increase in food prices will be no more than about 2½p in the £ spread over a period of some six years.
As an average family of two adults and two children currently spends between £7 and £8.50 a week on food, these increases would amount to only about 20p on the weekly shopping bill. The rise is in fact equivalent to ½ per cent. per annum on the cost of living as a whole. To put this in perspective, we must remember that our real wages have been rising much faster and we have been able both to improve our eating standards and to spend a larger proportion of our incomes on other things. There is no reason to suppose that this trend will not continue if we join the Community. Indeed, real wages in the Six are rising faster than they are here. For those who depend on pensions and social benefits we have given the firm undertaking in the White Paper that full allowance will be made in regular reviews for the effect on prices of joining the Community.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I thought that I heard my right hon. Friend say that the average annual increase in food prices would be 2½p in the


£. Does he mean the total over the five-year period?

Mr. Prior: It is 2½ per cent. on food prices each year for six years. That is an increase of 15 per cent. over the period of the transition. That is roughly 20p a week for the average family.
The suggestion was made in an article in yesterday's Evening Standard that we have under-estimated the extent of the real increase in food prices likely to result from entry. I notice the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) smiling at this reference. I am not sure whether he has convinced his former Permanent Secretary, or the other way round. By the time that he has listened to the next few sentences, I hope that he will realise how far up the pole he was.
The article said that we should be deliberately cutting ourselves off from the long-term prospect of obtaining cheaper food imports at falling world prices. Everyone knows that that is a totally illusory picture. World food prices have been rising at a relatively faster rate than Community prices. Although the process has been aggravated recently for one or two commodities by a poor production year resulting from droughts in New Zealand and so on, the underlying trend has been upwards for much longer than that. There is no reason to suppose that it will be reversed. There are clear pointers that it will continue. If hon Members want an example of that, they have only to read this morning's Financial Times, which shows that beef prices at Smithfield this week have fallen considerably and that, as a result, meat from the Argentine which was coming here has been diverted elsewhere. There is a greater demand for these foods in the world than a few years ago.
We have based our calculations on the cautious assumption that the gap between world prices and Community prices will not continue to go on narrowing as in recent years—and very much so in the last year—but will remain much the same.
I have always tried to give an accurate and dispassionate view on food prices. The Government have not sought to under-estimate the problem or the price which has to be paid. Nor should opponents

seek to magnify it. Some of the comments which have been made in the last few days have been utter nonsense. People do not realise that it is only when one has a weak case that it is necessary to exaggerate and use the kind of scare tactics which are being used.
The value-added tax has also been used to frighten people about the likely course of prices. Let me put the position quite clearly. We have always said that food will be relieved of value-added tax, except for the few items already subject to purchase tax. That remains our position outside the Community. Within the Community, V.A.T. is applied to food by member States at reduced rates, but there is no requirement for uniformity at present and little immediate prospect of any move in that direction. The White Paper says that in due course harmonised rates and coverage may be introduced by unanimous agreement. So we should be a party to any such agreement and would be able to make our views felt.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked a question about New Zealand. He wanted to know what would happen if we failed by 1977 to reach agreement on the continuation of dairy products supply.
We have agreed with the Community that a decision will be taken and that the measures must be suitable for ensuring the continuation of the derogation system after 31st December, 1977, and determining the details. Having agreed that much in the negotiations, it is inconceivable that we should fail as a full member of the Community to reach agreement on the exact nature of the measures in this important matter. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on the first day of the debate,
The Community is under an obligation to continue a satisfactory arrangement after 1977 …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1971 ; Vol. 821, c. 1461.]
The review arrangements have been described as "highly satisfactory" by Sir Keith Holyoake, and certainly this part of the agreement has met with the full approval of the New Zealand Government. If we have got so far in the negotiations when we are not a member of the Community, it seems to me to be impossible that we should not get a


good deal further once we are a member and able to make our views felt about what should happen.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does not what my right hon. Friend has said about agreement at the review mean that we would not contemplate using our veto if that agreement were not in all respects satisfactory from our point of view or from the point of view of New Zealand?

Mr. Prior: It has been made clear always that where the vital interests of any one country were considered to be at risk, the Community would not as a whole take action which would make that come about. The Community recognises that in the agreement which has been made already. The Community knows that, for Britain, a fair deal for New Zealand is as important as any other single factor in our relationship with the Community. The Community could not go on if it were not prepared to recognise that fact, and the fact that it has recognised it in the negotiations so far is an indication that it will continue to do so. We do not gain by continuing to impugn the integrity of the Community when it has shown over these negotiations that it intends to be fair to New Zealand.

Mr. Peter Shore: I asked a question earlier this week on this very point. I asked whether the Government considered the question of a satisfactory review of the arrangements for New Zealand a matter on which we would feel it right to use our veto if disagreement arose. I was told that the
… attitude of Her Majesty's Government in relation to matters following a review would be determined by the situation prevailing at the time.
The right hon. Gentleman now assures us that it is a matter which we should consider to be of first-rate importance to ourselves, but would it justify the use of the veto?

Mr. Prior: I think that I have made the Government's position and the Community's position abundantly clear.
I want now to turn briefly to another subject which is causing hon. Members a good deal of concern. I refer, of course, to fisheries. Among those matters for which I am responsible, there is no other

aspect of the negotiations which has commanded greater attention or occupied more of the time of the House. I stress that the Government consider this a matter of the greatest concern and importance.
The position in the negotiations is simple. We and the other applicants have expained why the provisions of the present common fisheries policy governing access to coastal waters will not do for the enlarged Community. The Community has accepted the need to reconsider them. There will be further discussions in the autumn, and also at that time there will be discussions on the market organisation.
Our proposal on limits is for a six-mile exclusive limit for the enlarged Community for vessels genuinely fishing from home ports, while all members would have access to the waters in the outer six miles. But the whole of the limits up to 12 miles would be subject to our jurisdiction, so that we should be able to impose non-discriminatory conservation regulations and enforce them within the whole of our present limits.
Let us get it quite plain. I consider that this proposal strikes a fair balance between the needs of our inshore fisheries and those of the deep sea fleet. I hope that the House will recognise the importance of what I have just said. This is not just a matter of the inshore fisheries ; it is a matter of the deep sea fisheries, too. There are just as many important fishermen in Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood, Aberdeen and Lowestoft, my constituency, as there are in other places round the coast. [An HON. MEMBER : "There are more."] There are more, but I do not want to get it out of proportion. I am trying to say that we are seeking to achieve a fair balance between all sections of the fishing industry. I think that that is a reasonable view to take.
We shall, of course, be ready to discuss any special difficulties, but we can do so only on the basis of a fair solution applied throughout the enlarged Community. The solution which we seek is based on the principles of the European Fisheries Convention which embodies the only internationally agreed régime for the waters with which we are concerned. We believe that that offers the prospect of an equitable agreement for all the parties


to it. If a permanent agreement satisfactory to all cannot be reached, the only alternative—we have made this plain—is to maintain the status quo for the time being. I am second to none in my admiration for the fishing industry and fishermen. I hope, though, that fishermen will not allow themselves to be used by unscrupulous people who are jumping on to the fisheries bandwagon to grind other axes. I give that warning to the fishing industry.

Mr. James Johnson: This is most important. Is the Minister speaking about the 1964 Convention signed by 18 nations with the sole exception of Norway? Is that the Convention about which he is talking?

Mr. Prior: I am talking about the 1964 Convention which was not signed by Norway, but which we think forms the basis on which a future agreement for the Six plus the Four should be reached.
It has long been recognised that entry to the E.E.C. could involve difficulties for some parts of British horticulture. But the problems of the industry do not arise solely for this reason. They are longer term and much more far reaching.
Successive Governments have been anxious to reduce dependence on protection by tariffs and quotas and have given the industry substantial aid to modernise production and marketing. At present, rising costs, particularly for fuel and transport, are bound to add to the concern of growers. Our concern, therefore, has been to secure the maximum time for growers to adjust to membership of the Community. The terms negotiated set down that there will be no tariff cut in the first year after entry. There will be flexibility in adjusting the tariffs, and we have an undertaking that the enlarged Community will be ready to take prompt action to deal with disturbances in its markets. During the transitional period we shall also be able to take protective measures against dumping by another member State where these can be justified.
One of the main concerns of growers has always been their vulnerability to competition from imports not only from Europe but often from further afield.

It is not always realised that the protection of the common external tariff will in general for horticulture afford more protection than we have now. What is more, for apples, pears, tomatoes, plums and cherries, duties are automatically increased if import prices fall below a certain level.
For apples and pears the Government accept that there is the problem of surpluses within the Community. We have the situation where prices for good-class produce are undermined by poor quality supplies grown at home. I have taken steps to deal with this by giving special encouragement to orchard grubbing. There are already similar measures within the Community, and we shall be taking a keen interest in the policies of the Six for the control of production. Meanwhile, we are determined that the levy system, which is to be introduced for the transition period in place of our present quotas, should provide meaningful protection and ensure that prices are brought into line only gradually.
I have never sought to disguise that there are climatic disadvantages for some sections of our horticulture industry. But let us not exaggerate them. Our climate for growing field vegetebles, which is over 40 per cent. of horticultural production, is unrivalled. Our growers are competitive and they, in turn, will be well placed to supply our food manufacturers, who will have access to a larger and faster growing market. In other sectors I believe that there is room for adjustment to meet changing market conditions, and I am confident that efficient growers will take their opportunities. I assure the House, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), who raised questions on this matter on the first day of the debate, that we shall be ready to help efficient producers who face special problems of adjustment. I shall be discussing this matter with the industry, together with the problem of any who may have to go out of business.
The main outstanding questions in the agricultural sector concern the animal health rules. The position here is widely misunderstood, so I should like to clarify it. There are various differences between our measures and those of the Community. They reflect the animal health situation that prevailed when their measures were drawn up. The most


important difference is that the Community vaccinate against foot-and-mouth disease and consequently vaccinated cattle are free to pass between member States. They also pursue a slaughter policy to deal with disease outbreaks. They are making good progress towards stamping out the disease, but they cannot, as yet, rely exclusively on slaughter as we do.
As a member of the Community we could still continue with our slaughter policy and refuse to import animals from areas which were not free of disease. The problem, as the position stands, is that we should be required to accept vaccinated animals. Clearly we do not want to do this if there is the slightest risk that a vaccinated animal might be a carrier of disease. It is clear that it would not be in the interests of the Community to allow any setback in animal health. On the contrary, the Six have made rapid progress in recent years, and the aim must be to maintain the rate of progress and to encourage the highest standards in an enlarged Community. I am sure that this is a sentiment which would be shared by all those who have responsibilities for animal health.
We have, therefore, proposed the setting up of an expert group with the Six and the other applicants to assess the situation. I expect these discussions to start in the autumn. I should like to assure the House of the importance which I attach to satisfactory solutions to these questions, and I am confident that the Community will also recognise their importance.
I have so far dealt with some of the difficulties and uncertainties which arise, or have arisen, in the negotiations. These are important, but I hope that they will not be allowed to get out of perspective. We must look at the opportunities as well as the problems.
On the prospects for the agriculture industry as a whole, I do not propose to recapitulate what has been negotiated and placed on record in the White Paper. Even on hill fanning, I think that the situation now reached is extremely satisfactory for our hill farmers and offers a very favourable future. I am in no doubt that farmers can go into the Market with great confidence.
We have had long and demanding talks with the National Farmers' Union and

other bodies. These discussions will continue. As usual, the N.F.U. has proved itself extremely tough to deal with—at times, almost unreasonable—but it has been extremely well informed. I welcome the sound and strong leadership which the N.F.U. has been given by its leaders in the negotiations over the last few months.
The House knows that we expect output to expand by 8 per cent. as a result of entry by the end of the transitional period. This is on top of the expansion which we would in any case expect if we were outside the Community, and means a rate of expansion more than twice that of recent years, and on an increasing volume of output.
One cannot make detailed forecasts for individual commodities so far ahead, and individual producers will wish to consider their own production plans. But the main scope for expansion is clear. Production of cereals is likely to increase substantially in response to the higher Community prices. For wheat, E.E.C. prices are about £43 a ton compared with our present producer return of less than £33. For barley, the comparison is between £38 and £29 a ton. As a result of the very much higher price I expect a marked increase in production of oil seed rape which is a useful break crop in the cereals rotation. The Community price for sugar beet is £7·20 a ton, compared with £6·70 ex-farm in this country. Growers will benefit from higher returns, though the amount of expansion here will depend on the arrangements to be negotiated for the period after 1974.
For milk, direct price comparisons are not possible, but the average producer's return is likely to be significantly higher than our present United Kingdom estimate of 19p a gallon. There will be better prices for manufacturing milk, and even allowing for higher feed costs I expect an increase in production and in overall profitability, especially in the summer months when grass is plentiful. I am certain that there will be a very considerable expansion, indeed, in areas such as the South-West and the West, where we can grow grass far better than in any other part of Europe.
For beef, it is difficult to forecast what the precise levels of return will be in the enlarged Community, but I am sure that


prices will rise more than enough to cover higher feed costs. Beef production from the larger dairy herd is also likely to increase—another benefit for the dairy producers. Producers' returns for mutton and lamb should improve in response to higher prices for other meats and the higher tariffs.
For pig meat, poultry and eggs, there will be higher feed costs, but prices generally are also higher in the E.E.C. Our industry is fully competitive, and I expect sufficient profitability to maintain our present levels of self-sufficiency.
A good deal has been said in the debate—and outside it—about the estimates in the White Paper of the impact of the common agricultural policy on the balance of payments. There has been a welter of expert comment on our figures for this, and most of it is highly conflicting. I should simply like to say that we have tried to be open and objective and to state our assumptions. One cannot prove the unknowable, but where it is possible to give a reasonable estimate we have done so.
We believe that the overall effect of the higher E.E.C. prices will be to raise the food import bill by only about £5 million in the first year, rising to about £50 million at the end of the transition, but this must depend on our ability to beat, or not to meet, our expansion targets at home. If we can produce more at home the adverse effect on the balance of payments will be less. My own view is that we shall produce a good deal more than the 8 per cent. which we have calculated, and this could affect our imports from third countries. I think that that answers the point made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). Any increase in price which there would be due to the operation of the levy has already been taken into account in the assessment of our food import bill. What the right hon. Gentleman has done is to add the increased prices of food from third countries because of the operation of the levy, and then added it again in our contribution towards the Community's budget. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman has done a double take on it.
The other major element which, as a result of the negotiations, it is possible

to quantify is the cost of our budget contribution, most of which, as the House knows, currently goes on agricultural expenditure. One reason is that the Community's policy is more developed in agriculture than in other sectors. In the enlarged Community there is good reason to expect that the proportion of the budget spent' on agriculture will decline, and that that on other things will expand.
Even in the short-term it is misleading to represent the arrangements simply as a subsidy to inefficient Community farmers. Much the biggest part of the agricultural expenditure is on market support. The amount spent by the Community on structural measures is only a little over 10 per cent. of the total. We shall ourselves expect to secure some payments here for our own improvement schemes. But by far the greater cost of structural improvement of the Continent is being borne by national Governments out of their own agricultural budgets.
So far as expenditure on market support is concerned, there are two points which I should like to make. The first is that there has been quite a dramatic fall in Community surplus, and hence in the costs of the Agricultural Fund. The second is that whatever may be the future level of its expenditure—and we hope to see the continuance of a better balance of supply and demand within the enlarged Community—it is of general benefit to farmers throughout the Community. I want to make it clear that it is of general benefit, that it will help us as well as help the farmers in Europe.
I am confident that there will be opportunities for increased and more profitable exports of food and agricultural products, both to the enlarged Community and to third markets. Higher prices on our exports to the enlarged Community alone could be worth £30 million to us, quite apart from any increase in volume. Our food manufacturers are highly efficient. I know that they foresee good export opportunities, and we are ready to seize them. So if one looks at it from the point of view of our agriculture and food industries, which together represent a very significant sector of the economy, the prospects for growth, for exports and for higher returns are most promising, and more so than the uncertain prospects which would face us outside.
The benefits to agriculture are benefits to the nation as a whole. The growth which I have described will continue after the transitional period, making a permanent and welcome contribution towards import saving. Our food and agricultural exports will compete successfully in a larger market. It is a challenge certainly, but let those who wish to cling to the old ways make out their case. Will they bring us in the future the prosperity which they have signally failed to achieve in recent years? The policy of selling manufactured goods in exchange for cheap food from the rest of the world is no longer the easy road to prosperity that it once was. The primary food-producing countries are increasingly, and rightly—and I feel sure that the whole House will agree with this—demanding better prices and depending less on our market, as they also depend less on our manufactured goods. They are developing their own industries, and they are buying increasingly from our competitors. The world market which we once enjoyed is shrinking with the growth of great trading blocs.
I cannot believe that we shall choose to stand alone. Our friends throughout the world—even those who have most at stake—have seen the need for us to play our part in Europe if we are to play our part in the world. If we fail now, we shall delight only our foes, and have only ourselves to blame.
There can be few Members who have not studied and discussed every facet, every nuance, of the Community and our negotiations. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong on Wednesday when he divided hon. Members into three groups—those who were in favour of entry without conditions, those who have been anti at all times, and those who were in the middle waiting to see what the terms were.
I know of no hon. Member on this side of the House, or, I think, any hon. Gentleman opposite, who would join unconditionally, but I know of many—and I am one of them—who are emotionally and practically drawn towards the inexorable logic of a greater European entity. Certainly I accept that the terms negotiated are fair to all concerned. Of course there are risks in joining. No great enterprise is ever without them. All the great pioneers and

pioneering communities of the past took enormous risks to find a new life and build a great empire. I have no doubt that they were told by some of their friends that it would be safer to stay at home. They took risks far greater than those we are expecting today.
What I find worrying about our present attitude is that so many seem to doubt our ability to succeed in competition with other European countries. This timidity is not characteristic of our country ; it is not the stuff of a great people. If we have not the courage and the will to join I doubt very much whether we should have sufficient will to succeed if we stayed out.
I am certain that in October Parliament will decide to join. It will be giving a lead to the nation, and I feel that the nation will respond. The British respect determined leadership. The reputation of Parliament will be enhanced, and with it the strength and morale of the nation.

11.41 a.m.

Mr. Fred Peart: I do not dissent from what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food fairly said in concluding about the impact on agriculture when we join the Community, and I believe that when the negotiations are going on he will try to achieve the best for our country.
The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his views. He made a remark about my own views in relation to a former Permanent Secretary, who I thought wrote an extremely interesting and factual article which appeared in the Evening Standard yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman said that I would be up the pole. I was not sure what that crude language meant. I thought that the latter part of his speech was in a much better tone.
This is a very important debate, even though we shall have to wait until the autumn for a decision to be reached in principle on whether we join the Community. This is a probing debate. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have expressed different views, and the debate goes right across party differences. Although I am speaking from the Front Bench, I speak for myself. Without being arrogant, I believe that


my views represent those of an important section of my party and the general public outside. Nevertheless, I respect the views of those who, like the Minister, take a different viewpoint. I trust that they will recognise that we, too, are sincere in our views.
As to the argument about consistency, many hon. Members have been waiting to see the terms, and there are many who will still be uncommitted until they hear the final debate in the House.
No one speech can cover all the issues involved. There will inevitably be an emphasis on agriculture today, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who catch Mr. Speaker's eye will have no inhibitions. No doubt many of them will take up different aspects of policy. Naturally, I too, should like to concentrate on food and agricultural policy, especially those aspects which arise in the White Paper.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly described in detail some of the effects of the Community on specific aspects of British agriculture, and he repeated some of the details in the White Paper about the effect on certain commodities. The transitional arrangements have been spelt out in paragraphs 81–89. The transition to prices in the Community will be made by six steps over five years. Our deficiency payments system is to be phased out, and after that period farmers will get the return from the market. A levy system will come into operation. Britain will then fully accept the C.A.P., a levy system providing Community preference over imports from third countries. This is what the debate is about.
The right hon. Gentleman has stressed higher returns, a point made in the White Paper. But there will also be higher costs, not only of feed but higher costs resulting from the impact of higher food prices on ordinary men and women who serve industry and the economy. This is a factor that cannot be ignored, though it is only sketched in by the White Paper.
In the White Paper the right hon. Gentleman has not only discussed the transitional arrangements in fair detail but has put before us other important agricultural questions. The first is the annual price review. The review which is suggested, a discussion at Community

and national level, is no substitute for our existing procedure. I pressed the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about this once and he kindly wrote to me in detail about it. I believe that the review suggested will in no way be the same. Prices will not be discussed in the same way, although we shall have a review of the economic conditions of the industry before that review. I warn the farming community that their views will not have the authority in the Community that they have in the normal discussions which now take place between the Government and producers.
That matter is dealt with in detail in paragraph 148. The Government suggest there that there will be
meaningful and effective consultation with producers' representatives.
That is still very vague. I hope that the producers will continue to press the Government on the matter.
Then there is the great argument about statutory marketing boards. Here there has been a generous assurance, but are we certain that some of the present boards will still be able to have their monopoly powers under the regulations which emerge from the Treaty of Rome? Will the Milk Marketing Board still be able to have its pooled transport arrangements, which help the regions, such as West Wales and some of our producing areas in the South-West? Will that system, which has brought benefits to the small farmers in particular, go? Hon. Members on both sides who take an interest in this realise that it is a very important matter for our farm producers.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that hill farming will be satisfactory. I hope so. There is a statement on this. I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman had not destroyed the rural development boards in the north and elsewhere, which provided assistance for hill fanners and which when we enter the Community will be essential in order to protect certain of the hill and upland regions of this country. I am sorry that the Minister was rather doctrinal and spiteful about something which had been accepted by all sections of the community, and all sections of political thought in the areas concerned.
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about animal health. There are great problems here, particularly the question


of foot and mouth epidemics. The Community has no slaughter policy like ours. It has a vaccination policy coupled with slaughter, but it has not been very successful. We have only to consider the number of outbreaks in West Germany and parts of Europe to see that that system has not worked like ours. I am glad that we have the assurance that we can keep our policy and restrictions. I trust that there will be no attempt to phase out our policy to accept this part of the C.A.P.
The right hon. Gentleman spent some time on horticulture, and gave a glowing picture. But for many sections of the industry there will be disaster. This is why I know that many horticulturists have protested strongly not only to their union but to the Government, and even the right hon. Gentleman has had to accept that for many horticultural producers there will be difficulties.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will try to compensate producers who will go out because of climatic conditions and so on, especially in northern areas and in Scotland, but there could be other great difficulties for many producers. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not be complacent about this and assume that everything is all right. It is far from all right. This is an important section of the community, and what is happening and what could happen may have serious consequences.
I agree that we must consider the interests of the long-distance fishery operators and balance their interests with those of the inshore men. We must never let down our inshore fishermen. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will do that, and he is on record as saying that he wants an agreement before we go in. In other words, we have been assured that he wants the matter settled and the necessary assurances obtained before we join the E.E.C.
It is all very well to say that there will be consultations in the autumn, but many of us would like to have something on the dotted line before we join, particularly if that is the wish of the Government. The Minister must, therefore, bear in mind the interests of the inshore fishermen, remembering that they have given much to this country and have been the backbone of many of our voluntary organisations for our defence. They

now need protection and specific assurances. In other words, we want a definite agreement before any final decision to join Europe is made.
I am dubious, in view of some of the assumptions that are made in the White Paper, about certain fundamental arguments. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one in particular—world prices. He has assumed, and many of the figures in the White Paper reflect this assumption, that world prices of food commodities will go on increasing. But many people take a contrary view. The right hon. Gentleman should not be dogmatic about these matters. Perhaps this is a good reason why he should be less precise than are many of the statistics in the White Paper.
The Minister should accept that change is likely. Changes have been taking place in supply, particularly because of world climatic conditions. Consider, for example, the export of New Zealand dairy products. Drought and other climatic conditions have had a bigger impact in this sphere. This is why the Minister should not be dogmatic in making assumptions. Many of those who are closely involved with these issues know that there could well be a downward trend in world food prices.
The fundamental argument is that we can enter the Community only if we concede in the matter of agriculture. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of a Freudian slip when he said, in effect, "We may not all like the C.A.P."—I assumed that he was speaking for us all—but we are worried because of this fundamental argument of our entering only by conceding in argriculture and accepting the common external tariff policy.
I appreciate that there are pressures on the right hon. Gentleman. He has no doubt been told, "Consider the advantages for British industry of this wider market. It is worth accepting the C.A.P. for that", but I am doubtful about the industrial advantages that will accrue, though I will not go into that question now.
I regret that we must accept the C.A.P. in toto. After all, it is protectionist in concept and we have before us a managed market with a tariff wall. It is an economic autarchy. It is a preference system which discriminates against


countries outside, many of which have been our traditional food suppliers. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) will forgive my quoting something he said eloquently not long ago :
The Community has undoubtedly one ugly aspect to its face, the working of some aspects of the common agricultural policy. They certainly should not be proud of this. Indeed, a bit of plastic surgery would not go amiss.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman is objecting to the C.A.P. as a whole. Is he aware that the principles of the C.A.P. are broadly acceptable and that his right hon. Friend was objecting to the working of a particular part of it? There is no permanency about it—[Interruption.]—and that is an aspect which we can alter later.

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that and I believe that what I have said is right—that we must accept the C.A.P. in toto. One could not possibly have a system which is accepted by the French but of which we will take a contrary view once we join the E.E.C. If the hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise, he is living in cloud cuckoo land.
I do not like this system and despite all the propaganda, I have not detected any enthusiasm for it on the part of European farmers. Neither do I detect enthusiastic support from the European consumers, who are today subjected to exceedingly high food prices. Its full acceptance is the price we shall have to pay for entering the Community.
Apart from that, we will have to dismantle a support system that has worked well. It may have creaked a little here and there, but it has been admired by European farmers and political leaders.
The 1947 and 1957 Acts were the basis of our policy and they laid down a system of assured markets and guaranteed prices. Those Measures represented a charter for the industry and did much to enhance the development of agriculture in the post-war period. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not dispute that. The system has had the broad support of the industry, the farming community and the main political parties.
I have never suggested that the 1947 Act should be sacrosanct or that the 1957 Measure, which was passed by the then Conservative Government, should not be changed. Changes have been made in the policy and it is inevitable that changes must come about.
It was revealed in the recent debate on agriculture that the Government are preparing the way for our entry into Europe. It is clear that this valuable system of ours will have to be demolished. It will mean the abolition of county committtees and the introduction of import levies on certain commodities. It is clear that even during the present negotiations our political leaders who are responsible for the negotiations have been preparing to phase our policy in with that of the C.A.P. This is a strange way to negotiate. Concede everything before you enter!
It would be a strange irony of history if we were to destroy a system which has worked and replace it with one that does not work and then, at a later stage, change back to our original system, a system which many people in Europe strongly admire.
There is no logic in the argument that we should accept the C.A.P. as it stands and then, when we are in, alter its ugly aspects. If there were any force in that argument, it would have been stronger before the countries of the E.E.C. finally agreed the financial provisions of the C.A.P. There is little, if any, force in the argument now.
I remain sceptical about the supposed benefits which our entry will bring to British agriculture. Consider the high prices linked with high costs. They could present enormous difficulties for our farmers. Then remember the high food prices on particular commodities. They could lead to a lessening of demand on the part of the consumer.
The old argument about margarine replacing butter is well known. It has come true on the Continent. Rising food prices change diets and patterns of food consumption. For this reason the Government have been warned to beware about milk supplies to important sections of the comunity. But it is not only a question of a change of diet.

Mr. Adam Butler: The right hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to get away with the suggestion


that the pattern of food consumption on the Continent has deteriorated. He should be aware that the consumption of meat and butter is more or less equal with, and in some parts greater than, that of this country.

Mr. Peart: That is not my impression. I believe that we supply cheaper and better food in this country, and that our people in the post-war period have had a better diet than the people in many countries of Europe and many sections of the European Community. I believe my argument is right and fundamental.
It is all very well saying that we must have higher cereal prices, but this can affect husbandry, and a greater emphasis on cereal production is dangerous to certain sections of farming. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the Strutt Committee, the Advisory Council, which has published a fine report out-ling the dangers of over-cropping in East Anglia and other regions. There is a great danger that the C.A.P., with its emphasis on increased prices for cereals, will have a great effect on the European Community. It is also a real threat to this country, and we must not be too hasty in adopting dogmatic attitudes about the virtues of going into a high price system.
The simple fact is that the C.A.P. means higher food prices, whatever may be the arguments about the 2½ per cent. a year increase in retail prices mentioned in the White Paper, which may be compared to the figure of 18 per cent. to 26 per cent., also in the previous White Paper of 1970. We also have to remember the value-added tax. Despite what has been said by the Minister, there has been no assurance that this will not affect food prices if we go into the Community.
So large sections of the community in our country will be affected. Whether we like it or not, food is important ; it is the stuff of politics ; and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should not be arrogant about the effect of high food prices on consumers. Not so long ago the Polish leaders in the Communist régime recognised this. They had to resign because of high food prices.

Mr. Prior: Is it not the fact that when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet, the Cabinet accepted that

it would have to come to terms with the common agricultural policy? Surely it is not very fair to accuse hon. Members on this side of the House of wanting to have dear food prices when that was exactly the acceptance that the right hon. Gentleman had to come to when the application was made?

Mr. John E. B. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman did not resign.

Mr. Peart: It is wrong to ask whether I should have resigned. I may have had to come to a decision, and I accept this. After the negotiations and after the terms are known one obviously would have to consider what one's position would be. I can say no more than that.
I am now dealing with the policy of the present Administration and with the impact on the consumer if we accept the advice that has been tendered by the Government. That is really the issue today. They are the people who said at the last election that they would reduce prices "at a stroke"—but I do not want to inject the political argument into our debate. They knew that this would be impossible if we entered the Community, and they fudged this at the election.
There is one certainty. I believe that France has undoubtedly dominated the negotiations, and this emerged from the Pompidou talks wth the Prime Minister. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Duchy said in December in Brussels that the Community farmers would gain extensive new markets for their products while Britain would be paying far more by way of levies than it would be obtaining from the Community Farm Fund. This theme was developed by no less a person than Christopher Soames, our Ambassador in Paris, in his letter to the French newspaper Figaro, in which he said :
Don't forget, it is not just a question of the amount we pay to the common budget. From the first day, we shall also be buying more and more of our food from you at very much higher prices than we now pay, thus enabling your farmers to realise the promise of expansion by virtue of their preferential access to the biggest food importing market in the world.

Mr. Russell Kerr: At the cost of New Zealand.

Mr. Peart: At the cost of our traditional suppliers. That was confirmed by


Mr. Pompidou in his recent speech to the French farmers. In other words—at whose expense? It will be at the expense not only of our traditional suppliers but possibly of some of our own home farmers. As my hon. Friend has said, it will be at the expense of New Zealand.
I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained that he has got a good deal for New Zealand. This was argued the other day, and quotations have been bandied about. I think in the circumstances he did better than he thought he would, but, as paragraph 103 of the White Paper points out, the guaranteed quantity of butter from New Zealand for the first five years will be reduced by 4 per cent. per annum, so that New Zealand will sell 20 per cent. less in the fifth year. There is also another reduction for cheese. It may well be that there will be negotiations later on, and we may have an international dairy agreement, but there is no long-term security for our New Zealand suppliers.
I come to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the possible impact of our entry into the Community on our Commonwealth sugar suppliers. We are members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which affects 14 developing countries plus Australia. I had the honour to visit the Caribbean just after the Chancellor of the Duchy, who had a successful visit to the West Indies and saw for himself what could happen if sugar was bady affected in relation to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
This is where I differ from the Government on an important agricultural matter. I will give the sequence, because it is important. Taking first Britain's original proposals to the Six, the present arrangements were to end in 1974, then the present quotas of the developing countries were to be continued—that is a figure of 1·4 million tons—and Australia's quota of 335,000 tons was to be gradually phased out. The Six then offered a new type of association or trade agreement to be negotiated when the Yaoundé Convention comes up for renewal in 1974–75, with sugar to be considered then in this context. The Chancellor of the Duchy rejected this. He had a dialogue in which he coined

that wonderful phrase "the dialogue of the deaf". He stressed the need to have bankable assurances, which was a phrase he took up from the distinguished Jamaican Minister, Robert Lightbourne, who is a good friend of this country.
On 12th May the Six came back and stated :
It would be the firm purpose (aura à coeur) of the enlarged Community to safeguard the interests of the countries in question whose economies depend to a considerable degree on the export of primary products, in particular sugar.
The Chancellor of the Duchy accepted this, but, unaccountably, there was still no guarantee of quantity. He said that he would consult the Commonwealth producers. The Commonwealth Sugar exporters and their Governments rejected this assurance, because it gave them no quantity. He then remembers the Lancaster House discussions. What is the essence? The Brussels Agreement was taken as a firm assurance of a secure and continuing market for the quantities of Commonwealth sugar covered by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement from the developing countries. Negotiations for association or trade agreements are due to be concluded by 1975 but, pending conclusion, their existing trade patterns with the E.E.C. would be maintained. The importance of the continuation of the International Sugar Agreement was recognised. On this basis, I believe that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement Governments accepted this. That was why Lord Campbell, after the conference, wrote his letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy.
Britain is bound, therefore, to protect Commonwealth sugar in the enlarged Community. If Britain cannot persuade the Six to accept this, Britain must carry on unilaterally. I want this assurance today. The Commonwealth sugar exporters have accepted the deal on this basis, but the relevant point for us is what the Six think about it. The Lancaster House document was deposited with the Six by the right hon. Gentleman. Did they accept it? They have never said so. There has been no agreement or negotiation on this matter. There has merely been a putting on the record by the Chancellor of our point of view.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House should remember that the French


sugar producers claim expansion for themselves and suggest a reduction for the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement down to 600,000 tons, less than half of their quota. This is public knowledge, yet neither the British Government nor the Six have reacted to it. Therefore, what we have is not a negotiation but vague words capable of many interpretations.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Surely the position here is that, that statement being written in, we clearly can and must take the Commonwealth sugar. But the cost to us of doing so is a completely open-ended commitment. It can be forced as high as the market chooses. The cost to us of this rescue of the Caribbean may be astronomic.

Mr. Peart: It may or may not be. The great argument that the Caribbean countries have is about access to our market. There is no guarantee of quantities. That is my point. In 1974, inevitably we shall have another battle. In other words, the Government have negotiated nothing and the position is still one of uncertainty.
Lastly, I come to the question of Australia and sugar. This is very important because the Australians feel very aggrieved about this. Australia and the International Sugar Agreement are important to us. The exclusion of Australia in relation to Commonwealth guarantees can threaten the future of the International Sugar Agreement. This threat can be diminished only if Australia's quota is very gradually phased out. Although this point was taken, I understand, in the original United Kingdom proposals, it does not seem to have been pursued in subsequent negotiations. The White Paper is vague on this matter. The International Sugar Agreement aims to regulate the market by quotas and price brackets. I believe that the Minister will accept that it is important to some 40 developing countries, including Australia, which sells over 1 million tons on the international market, and to many developing countries of the Commonwealth, for example, Mauritius, which puts on to the market 33 per cent. of its crop, and Fiji, whose figure is 40 per cent.
Successive British Governments have supported the I.S.A. but the E.E.C. refused to join in 1968 and still refuses. The

International Sugar Agreement works only because all exporting countries have agreed to restrain production and some developed exporting countries, including Australia, have accepted a large cut-back in their actual performance. The E.E.C. refuses to accept any cut-back or any quota restriction and that is why it refused to join. But it has benefited from the increased prices achieved by the sacrifice of others, and mostly the poorer countries. The higher the world price, the less it costs the E.E.C. to subsidise its dumped surpluses. So if Australian sugar is thrown on to this delicately balanced market and replaced by expanded beet production in Europe, and if room is made for C.S.A. sugar without restraining beet production in Europe and the resulting surplus continues to be dumped on the market, the whole of this agreement will be at risk and, with it, employment and foreign exchange earnings in a large part of the third world. All this could have been avoided if the Government, instead of negotiating on an empty formula, had negotiated precise and unequivocal terms.
Australian farmers in Queensland will suffer considerably. They are not rich. They have given loyal support over the years to this country. I cannot understand the attitudes of some of our Euro-fanatics who deride Australia in particular. We exported to Australia last year £346,094,000 worth of products. Australia exported to us £260,084,000. There is a balance of over £86 million. That is the figure for Australia's trading deficit with us for the last full year for which figures are available. It means that they bought £86 million worth more of our goods than we bought of theirs. If we add invisible trade, the figure is even better for Britain.
I dislike the attacking of Australia that I detect. I dislike this contempt for the men and women who, in a major crisis, helped us to defeat a brutal dis-tator who sought to unite Europe. I detest the anti-Commonwealth attitude adopted by certain people.
I feel passionately about this matter and I hope that others will feel passionately, too. That is why I am worried about acceptance of a narrow economy and a community which is inward looking. I have given the example of sugar, which


is so important to parts of the Commonwealth and the underdeveloped parts of the world. I believe also that there are other dangers. After all, the less developed countries could be seriously affected by the E.E.C., and especially the C.A.P., in the light of world trade generally. The development of the production of primary products and the free movement of these products to markets outside is vital to these areas. The more developed countries, including Britain and those of Europe, have moral obligations. That is why I dislike the protectionism enshrined in the C.A.P. Even the United States has begun to react to this growth of regional protectionism. After all, in the post-war world we have seen the development of a multilateral economy, helped by G.A.T.T. The Kennedy Round took us a stage further, and hon. Gentlemen opposite supported that.
I am worried that the drive towards severe, selfish protections by the E.E.C. will inevitably create reactions in the United States and lend support to those who would bring in protectionist legislation. This will inevitably lead to a disruption of agricultural trade. This could mean an accelerated increase in production in areas such as the E.E.C. and an accumulation at a later stage of food surpluses, which could have serious effects on agricultural trade and on those countries who are seeking to develop their primary production.
These are real dangers. I ask all my colleagues, before they wish to rush in, to remember that these are important issues which have not been settled. Although I am sceptical about the C.A.P. and our entry, I do not approach this debate as a Little Englander. I am not anti-European. We are in Europe ; we are in E.F.T.A. I believe that we should have good relations with the Community ; I have never doubted that. I played my part many years ago as a member of the Council of Europe on many important European committees which investigated regional development. For example, I was concerned with the Commission in Mezzogiorno in Southern Italy, a country I know well.
I do not believe that my hon. Friends who support my point of view are not internationalists. Many of us believe in

the Commonwealth because we see it as an example of a multi-racial community which plays an important part in the world. One has only to look at the trade figures for Commonwealth exports revealed in the Press today. That also is a noble concept. I reject the idea of a regional grouping, which may want a separate foreign policy, a separate defence organisation and a separate atomic bomb. This is not the way to create understanding as between West and East Europe. We must get on with the Soviet Union. We must get on with those countries which have different political systems. We must have good relations with the United States.
I do not accept this concept of a third or, European power grouping. People who take my point of view are international in outlook. We welcome new initiatives on a larger scale. We welcome the recent initiative of the United States with China. We believe in one world and that the underdeveloped countries should have priority. This is why I have forcefully expressed my views.

12.23 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I do not propose to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). By talking about foreign affairs he has ventured rather further than usual. However, we listened with interest to what he said, although we disagreed with much of it.
I wish to confine my remarks to agriculture and food, which represent a major part of the question of our entry and it is therefore right that we should be discussing this subject and considering the implications and effect of our entry on agriculture and food. Rumour has it that there could be 900 clauses in the legislation with which we must deal next year and the following year if we make the great decision to enter. Of that number, 450 or more could be concerned with agriculture.
The increased cost of food if we enter is a major worry for consumers. I welcome the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Minister on his estimates of the increase in the cost of food. If we are to be successful, agriculture has a very large part to play.
I am very concerned that the shadow Minister of Agriculture is not present. I


should have thought that he would be bound to be here this morning. I have heard that he would have liked to be here and would have liked to speak. I cannot understand why neither of the Opposition spokesmen on agriculture is present.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Worry about your party ; do not worry about the Labour Party.

Mr. Mills: It is important that we should know the Socialist position on agriculture if we enter the Common Market.
We in agriculture need to know more of the details concerning entry into Europe. We have had the bare bones. I am not asking for the details to be given now, but I believe that in the months ahead more details should be released to the farmers and to the various agricultural organisations. Many people are anxious about many details. That is not unnatural. I suggest that a booklet might be published dealing with many of the fears and questions about which our farmers are concerned.
Our entry will not mean any dramatic change overnight. The transitional period provides a safeguard, so that many of the problems can be ironed out as we go along. This should assure the farmers. However, as a farmer, perhaps I can give them a warning. The E.E.C. is not a club which we join and then leave just as it pleases us. Entry into Europe carries responsibilities for agriculture. We cannot walk in and out as we please. We shall have to accept a certain amount of discipline, but I believe that in the long run it will be of benefit to agriculture.
I welcome in principle paragraph 87 of the White Paper, which states that home agriculture can expand by 8 per cent. This is a very encouraging figure. It is vital that we should expand. Expansion should start now to prepare us for the time when we are a member of the E.E.C. Unless production increases, the balance of payments burden could become intolerable. The figure of 8 per cent. must give farmers confidence to invest, and they must try to attain this target.
Entry into Europe will present a challenge to the agricultural industry. It will provide a great opportunity for British

agriculture to do what it should have done under previous administrations, both Tory and Socialist, and that is to produce more of our own food instead of being at the mercy of growers abroad. [Interruption.] In spite of the mumblings among hon. Members opposite, I am sure that British agriculture will rise to the challenge and will produce the goods and will help our entry to the Common Market.
There is confidence in agriculture. That has not always been so. If we had gone on as we were, I do not believe that agriculture would have been in a fit state to play its part in our getting into Europe. Without the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister, confidence would not have been restored and we should not have been in a fit state to play our part.
The question of finance has been worrying me. I have been told by some banking officials that between £300 and £450 million extra could be required to finance our entry to the Common Market. From where will the money come? If we are to have the expansion required, we need finance. This is a problem. Perhaps we shall hear a little more about this matter from the Minister in the months ahead.
There is much that I should have liked to say, but I should say a few words about boards. I believe that the Milk Marketing Board is one of the major foundations of British agriculture, and it would be very serious if there were any undermining of this foundation.
The White Paper says that the Government would support the maintenance of these powers. I hope that is absolutely certain and that they would defend them, but how far would the Minister go? Would the Government allow the free import of milk into this country? That is the sort of fear which many British farmers have. Peaches are to be allowed in, but what about milk? Is it a fact that milk is not to be allowed in? There are problems about the winter differential, about the maximum liquid consumption which we have always encouraged and which ought to continue, and about the seasonal variation. These are all essential marketing functions.
There is one weak point in paragraph 148 of the White Paper. I refer to the


statement that the Milk Marketing Boards "are expected" to continue their essential functions. I should like a much stronger statement from the Government. It should not merely be "expected" ; it must be a certainty. The Milk Marketing Board performs one of the major functions in British agriculture and it must continue to do so, whether we are in or out of the Community.
There is much else that one could discuss, such as hill farmers and production grants. Incidentally, I hope those grants will continue. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has emphasised the problem of disease and animal health control. I believe that we are way ahead in this respect and I do not want to see any weakening. We have a high standard in this country, and we must maintain that standard. There is also the code of conduct with respect to animal husbandry. Here again we are ahead of many other countries, and that situation must be maintained.
The opportunities for British agriculture are very great in the Common Market. There are opportunities for increased production, for greater export and for a fairer price. British agriculture, I believe, will welcome entry into the Common Market and will rise to the occasion. It will not let the country down.

12.32 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: I begin with a brief expression of a long and deeply held conviction that this country would benefit from entering the European Economic Community on the right terms.
In the 1950s I saw something of the creation of a European political spirit. I saw Socialist comrades working in European municipalities contributing to the creation of that spirit. I thought that we should join in, too. I have always believed that a national political will is an important element in economic growth. I thought that this country, having lost an empire, might find and express that national political will for economic growth within the European Economic Community. Certainly we have not found it outside.
It is true that the European Economic Community, like some other human organisations,

is less than perfect. It is, for example, protectionist. But then, so are we. So are other developed countries. There is protection by tariff ; there is protection by non-tariff barriers ; and there is protection in certain cases by means of under-valued currencies. I hope that if we join, this country and the European Economic Community will be prepared to be as outward-looking to the rest of the developed world as they are to us and to go as far and as fast along that road as they are prepared to go.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farn-worth (Mr. Roper) made an excellent speech yesterday on the relations of this country and the European Economic Community with the under-developed world. I should like to see this country and the E.E.C. being a great deal more outward looking to them than they are to us. My hon. Friend compared our records and, indeed, one can make comparisons of our records in the way that he did. But both the E.E.C. and Britain have done too little in this field, and I hope that one of the consequences of our entry will be that both of us will do more.
The other aspect of the E.E.C. that has been referred to on many occasions is its protectionism in agriculture. But then we are protectionist in agriculture, too, though perhaps to a lesser extent. Of course, cheap food is desirable, but it should not be forgotten, when speaking of 120 years of cheap food, how closely 120 years of cheap food were associated with 120 years of laissez-faire policies, damage to British agriculture and to British industry in general. If it is universally and invariably right to buy in the cheapest market, how do we defend what we do in agriculture? How do we defend what we on this side of the House claim we should be doing for shipbuilding? If It is always right to buy ships in the cheapest market, why do we not buy them all in Japan? We know where ships can be bought most cheaply. We might then have the same sort of continual, inevitable and irreversible trade deficit with Japan as we have with New Zealand and Canada.
It seems to me that there are certain situations in which one should have regard to one's own national interest. Even Adam Smith supported the idea of State help for British shipping, which meant in the context of the time that he


was in favour of laissez-faire where there was no competition with British goods and services but in favour of State aid where there was competition—a good pragmatic Scottish attitude of which I entirely approve.
One thing that I would say about the European Economic Community, in view of a remark which was made in yesterday's debate, is that it is not inspired by laissez-faire. It is true that competition is the main economic instrument at the Community level, but I do not regard it as being inspired by laissez-faire. On the contrary, it is interventionist and activist in the sense that there is a belief—it is written into the Treaty of Rome and it is written into the actions of the Community—that if the effect of competition is to cause difficulty in certain areas, it is the responsibility of the national Governments, with some assistance from the Community, to do something about it.
The object of the Community is to increase the standard of living in all parts of the Community, to reduce regional poverty and dereliction and not to increase it. If one wants to read a laissez-faire treaty one should read not the Treaty of Rome but the Treaty of Stockholm constituting E.F.T.A. One of the facts that one should not forget is that we are not yet a signatory to the Treaty of Rome. We are a signatory to the Treaty of Stockholm, and that is a laissez-faire treaty.
Take, for example, investment grants which we on this side of the House introduced. Everyone knows that investment grants were anathema to our E.F.T.A. partners. They are acceptable in the E.E.C. If E.F.T.A. continued to exist and we on this side of the House tried to reintroduce investment grants, there would be the same sort of row in E.F.T.A. as there was when we introduced them in the first place.
The question has been raised whether, if we entered E.E.C, we would be able to give the same sort of assistance which led to the construction of the aluminium smelters in this country. All I know is that at the same time as we in this country were having difficult negotiations with E.F.T.A., and in particular with Norway, over aluminium smelters, the Germans were doing virtually the same thing—building an aluminium smelter with a

large degree of public ownership involved. People ask about restrictions on the expansion of British industry as a result of entry into international communities. The only example that I can recall in recent history of the expansion of a British industry being restricted by the British Government under international pressure is that of the aluminium smelting industry. We cut the initial quantity to be produced by 40,000 tons. We agreed to enter into a review of the future demand for aluminium with our E.F.T.A. partners before undertaking any expansion.

Mr. John Robertson: Would my right hon. Friend give an example of the Community's regional policies in assisting industry in the less fortunate areas of Europe?

Mr. Dell: There are so many examples. The best examples that have been quoted again and again come from Southern Italy. I intend to refer to regional policy so perhaps I had better go on.
As another example of this sort of interference with policies in this country resulting from the Stockholm Treaty we wanted to rationalise the ball-bearing industry and were referred to Article 16 of the Treaty regarding the right of establishment. I do not know what advice the Government have been given about the current Norwegian intention to establish a steel plant in this country. This has caused anxiety to some of my hon. Friends. I should be surprised if the Government's attention has not been drawn again to Article 16 of the Stockholm Convention regarding the right of establishment.
The points to be learned from these experiences are, first, if we enter into international associations of this sort we must expect that there will be attempts to influence our domestic policy. The second thing that must be learned is that there must be a national government which will stand up for the national interest. We went ahead with investment grants, with the aluminium smelters, and we rationalised the ball-bearing industry.
Thirdly, it is agreed that we need a larger market. Even those who oppose entry into the Community appear to favour E.F.T.A. The Order Paper on Trade and Industry day has been full of anti-Marketeers' questions about


E.F.T.A. Why do we not do more about E.F.T.A.?
One difference between the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. is that in the Community, if the effect of competition is to do damage to industry in some areas, then the national government and the Community are encouraged to do something about it, while in E.F.T.A. if we try to react to the difficulties created by competition we are told that we are breaching Article 13 of the E.F.T.A. Convention regarding the rules of competition. This is why I would prefer to be in E.E.C. developing regional policies, rather than in E.F.T.A.
I would like to make one brief quotation from something said by Jean Rey when he was President of the Commission, which deals very closely with this point. He said :
International competitiveness and technical progress make it imperative that, in spite of the diversity of the regions, solutions to regional problems must form part of the total Community regional policy.
That is the spirit on which the E.E.C. is founded.
Why do I believe that entry into the Community will increase our rate of economic growth? It is a matter not just of a larger market but of a very much larger market than our own, growing faster than we are. We are a population of 55 million drawn ahead by a population of 300 million in countries growing faster than us. E.F.T.A. was too small in relation to the United Kingdom to have a comparable effect and the existence of a reliable expanding demand in a guaranteed tariff-free market must have an influence on industrial investment in this country.
The second reason why I believe it will have this favourable effect on our growth record is the argument put forward by Professor Kaldor. Professor Kaldor opposes our entry into the Community because he believes that our balance of payments burden would be too great. If I understand him aright, he is saying that if the balance of payments burden were not too great, as in his view it is, then our entry would benefit our rate of growth because within the Community, with the additional competition and specialisation, with the rate of intra-E.E.C. trade rising faster than trade in the world as a whole, it would improve

the productivity and efficiency of our exporting industries which are the most efficient parts of the economy.
I take the view that the balance of payments burden is not too great and I am therefore entitled to say that on this part of the argument I am in favour with Professor Kaldor. I expect that we shall achieve greater specialisation, and as a consequence greater efficiency, greater productivity and a higher standard of living. It is said, "Oh well, this might happen but the disadvantage to this country is that all this economic and industrial development will move towards the centre—to the Ruhr or the Rhine and if we are lucky, at best it will come to the South-East."
I do not believe this argument. I do not see British industry, which has not moved so rapidly around this country, suddenly lifting up its skirts and rushing to the Continent. One of the most fundamental factors in industrial location is the proximity of the sea. When we were in Government we made a special study of the idea of maritime industrial development areas precisely because we saw the advantages of location by the sea. We have a lot of sea. The United States is so far the most successful common market in the world. The richest area of the United States is California on the west coast and the second richest is New York on the east coast. Merseyside might benefit by entry into the E.E.C. With the development of a better road system we could become the entrepôt not just of Britain but of Europe.
Certainly we need a growth policy to make this effective ; we need effective investment incentives and an effective regional policy. My main fear is not that we would be prevented from introducing such policies by the Community but that this Government, with their laissez faire attitude, will not introduce such policies. I welcome the categorical statement made last night by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He said that the question of the definition of the central area of this country would be regarded as a matter of vital national interest. That means, if I may interpret that statement in terms of my own constituency interest, that if Mersey-side were de-scheduled as a development area, to an extent greater than it has


already been descheduled by the actions of this Government, that would be a decision of the British Government and not of the Community.
It has been said that entry into the Community on these terms would represent a national economic disaster. In other words it is not just a matter of asking : "Are these terms more or less good, have we adequate guarantees for New Zealand and the sugar islands?"—[Interruption.] It has been suggested that it could be a national economic disaster.

Mr. Peart: Sugar islands and sugar countries.

Mr. Dell: Very well. I do not want to quarrel with my right hon. Friend more than I have to. I enjoyed his speech and I am glad to know that he is listening to mine.
It has been suggested that this would be a national economic disaster in view of the balance of payment cost. It is even suggested that the Government are concealing information which would make it clear to the public that it would be a national economic disaster. Given that we have democratic institutions that could only mean that the present Conservative Government have decided never again to win a General Election in this country. I have sufficient confidence in the Conservative Government to believe that they do want to win the next election—I do not think that they will, but they will try. It is very unwise to suggest that these terms represent a national economic disaster and it is not, I note with pleasure, what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said. What he said was
… Britain is likely to be at least as strong, as vigorous, as prosperous, as influential outside the Market as it would be if we were to enter the Market on the wrong terms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1971 ; Vol. 821, c. 1495.]
I regard that as a fairly moderate, neutral statement. If that is all there is in it, I for one am prepared to take the risk.
It is very important for one other reason that we should not say this would be a national economic disaster. It is this. I believe that, if we enter the E.E.C., a Labour Government will find it possible to work within the Community on these terms for the benefit of this country and of Europe.

12.52 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: In the 1950s the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and I shared the same sentiments about Europe when it was not quite so fashionable to have them. Since then the Common Market has embraced the worst forms of protectionism. The right hon. Gentleman has forgiven them for doing that. I have not. That is where our paths now go different ways.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was a little too charitable about their protectionist philosophy. We know that they are being liberal in their industrial tariffs ; they have brought down those tariffs more generously than we have. We also know that next year they will be on average only 7½ per cent. against the world. But in the matter of food, which is of great importance to the developing countries, they still have levies or tariffs of 20 per cent. This is having an appalling effect on the terms of trade between Western Europe and the developing countries. They are deteriorating year by year, and I do not think enough attention is paid to the rate of deterioration because they are getting worse year by year.
The Library has been good enough to work out some fresh figures for me. In the last 10 years the developing countries have been sending food and raw materials to Western Europe—to ourselves and Common Market countries—at prices which are now 11 per cent. less than what they were 10 years ago. Yet our inflation throughout Western Europe, which will not get any better, is causing our exports to them to go up by 16 per cent. Terms of trade disadvantageous to those countries must have the effect of not only inhibiting the growth of world trade but also exacerbating the problems now facing the developing countries.
When the right hon. Member for Birkenhead saw prospects for Merseyside and our own industry in the Common Market he must have endorsed paragraph 43 of the White Paper, a paragraph which says that, if we go in, the costs of industry will not change because the cost of living will not go up enough to justify any increase in labour costs. I find that difficult to understand. I thought that the Common Market countries were working


on a common social security system. I thought that we had to harmonise, and we know that in this country the social security system is largely financed out of taxation and not out of contributions. It is the opposite system in the Common Market. Once we harmonise, unless the present Government persuade the Community to lower pensions, we must have the same system. It is unthinkable that we shall persuade the Community to go over to a higher rate of taxation to support its present pension system. Therefore, once we harmonise contributions from employers and employees will just about double.

Mr. John Roper: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "once we harmonise". Would he not agree that the Commission has no proposals to harmonise social security and that this is something to be decided in the future and is not relevant now?

Mr. Body: A number of E.E.C. officials are working on harmonisation proposals now. Paragraph 43 concerns not only the matter of social security. It concerns also the price of food, which we should examine more closely.
I must, with regret, challenge some of the estimates made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I do not quite know what the true estimate is. If we look at the shortened version of the White Paper which is being distributed by the thousand in every constituency——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: At taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Body: Yes, at taxpayers' expense—we see that the price of food would go up by 2½ per cent. per year over five years. If we look at the White Paper proper, the period is over six years so that there is a slight discrepancy of 2½ per cent. It may be that those who have prepared the shortened version of the White Paper have been a little slapdash, or it may be that to propagandists there is nothing much in taking off 2½ per cent. But if the authorised version of the White Paper is correct, and the effect is cumulative, it comes to 15·96 per cent. which might be rounded off to 16 per cent.
I have ascertained—and perhaps my right hon. Friend can put me right if

I am mistaken—that this 2½ per cent. increase per year begins once we are members of the Community—in other words, from 1st January, 1973. It therefore makes no allowance for any increase in the price of food which will take place between now and that date, 18 months hence. Yet in that 18 months, are we not going to introduce import levies as a stepping stone towards being part of the common agricultural policy? Will not these import levies have some effect on the price of food? If they do, should not that impact be added to the 16 per cent.?
I understand from my right hon. Friend that the annual increase of 2½ per cent. is based on the assumption that the gap between Common Market food prices and world food prices will remain the same as it is now. I do not believe that gap has ever been so narrow as it is now. Can anyone possibly argue that that gap will remain as narrow as it is now? In the first place, Common Market food prices will rise. We all remember how the farmers in the Common Market descended on the capital of Brussels murmuring a little discontent about the prices they were getting ; and for their troubles they were shot down by the police and one or two died as martrys in the cause of higher prices. Those higher prices have yet to reach the farm gates ; they have yet to reach the retail shops of the Common Market. But once they do, they are bound to have an effect of increasing the price of food in the Common Market. If those prices rise, so also must world food prices fall, and it is wrong for anyone to be so pessimistic as to think that they will be as bad as they are now.
Experts can be wrong. But, when they are all agreed, he is a bold man who denies their truth. The author of paragraph 88 of the White Paper is such a bold man. He is free to cross words with the experts of the F.A.O. and elsewhere, but if he chooses to do so, should not he give his reasons?
In making this calculation, I assume that the Ministry of Agriculture has relied upon the United Nations index of world food prices. Half that index is made up of prices of tea, coffee, cocoa and cereals. Tea prices have been constant, and are likely to remain so. But the price of coffee has risen considerably in the world market because of abnormal frosts in South America. It is outside the realm


of probability that that kind of weather will continue in South America. Cocoa supplies also have been short for reasons of climate.
As for cereals, everyone in this House knows that the maize crop of the United States was struck by leaf blight, and that has caused the price of all feed grains and, therefore, other cereals to go berserk. Even if leaf blight strikes again, it is not likely to strike the maize crop year after year throughout the transitional period of six years. Therefore, we must look to a steadying of the price of cereals.
There are other reasons, apart from the inevitable return of a reasonable price for maize. We are all familiar with what has been described as "the green revolution". Many right hon. and hon. Members have travelled abroad and seen the fantastic rice crops now being raised. Rice yields are being doubled and, in some countries, nearly trebled. This will have its effect upon world cereal prices, as will the marvels being achieved in the production of wheat. According to the best estimates, by 1975 even China will have enough wheat to enable every one of its population to have 23 kilograms a year. The latest estimate of the United Nations is that, by 1975, there will be a world exportable surplus of more than 20 million metric tons. In the face of those figures, how can anyone say that there will be a need for the Common Market to go on building up its surpluses of wheat in the way that it has been? Alternatively, can it be argued that the world price of wheat will go on rising?
Another dominant element in the food index is dairy produce. People are not eating more butter and cheese. In this country, they are eating slightly less. What has happened is that production has fallen seriously in both the northern and southern hemispheres because of adverse climatic conditions which have not occurred for many years. As a result, production has fallen seriously and, therefore, prices have risen. It is unthinkable that existing high world prices for cheese and butter will be sustained.
As for sugar, which is the other principal commodity in the United Nations food index, we all know that all but 12 per cent. of the sugar grown in the world

has its price governed by either the International Sugar Agreement or the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. That means constant prices for 88 per cent. of the world's sugar. The remaining 12 per cent. is in a free world market, and the price goes up and down. It may be anything from £18 to more than £100 a ton. Again, it is outside the realms of possibility that there will be a high price for sugar in either a free world market or the managed market.
For those reasons, I believe that it is wrong for the Government to say that, if we go in, the price of food will increase by no more than 2½ per cent. a year over six years. That figure cannot be believed, and I say that with very great regret. It cannot possibly be less than 20 per cent., and Sir John Winnifrith, who speaks of a 50 per cent. increase, may be proved right.
We are told that a fortune will come to our farmers, and we have been assured of an overall expansion of some 8 per cent. If I got the message clear this morning, I thought that I heard my right hon. Friend say "at least" 8 per cent. On another occasion, he has singled out for mention certain commodities which are key sectors for expansion : cereals, beef, cheese, lamb and sugar beet. He has, therefore, excluded and not made key sectors milk, potatoes, pork, poultry, eggs, fruit and vegetables. Nor could they be.
We are told that fruit and vegetables may be slightly cheaper if we enter the Common Market. But as to the other commodities in the second category, we are virtually self-sufficient. We produce nearly all our own milk, potatoes, pork, poultry and eggs. Yet, when one looks at their cash value, they come to more than half the food that we produce. If that be so, and there is to be an overall increase of 8 per cent., it means that the commodities which my right hon. Friend has listed will have to increase by perhaps double 8 per cent. in order to get that overall expansion of 8 per cent. This is a tall order.
Perhaps the calculation has prompted the President of the National Farmers' Union to predict that
… entry to the E.E.C. may enable our sugar beet production to expand from 30 per cent. of our needs to 60 per cent. of our needs.


This will mean increasing the capacity of our sugar beet factories, which are now working pretty well fully to capacity. One contrasts that with what is going on in France, where they are working considerably below capacity. While our sugar beet factories work season was 105 days last year, the French season worked 65 days. The French could increase their sugar beet production by a third without increasing the capacity of their factories, and French farmers are itching to provide those needs.
It is unrealistic to expect any enormous increase in our sugar beet production without causing some dislocation to what is going on in France. I cannot see the French agreeing to that. Moreover, as the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) explained, any increase in our sugar beet production must jeopardise the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and any large increase in European production must diminish the Commonwealth share of our market.
As for an increase in cereal production, in view of recent reports and much of the evidence that we have heard about our soil, I, for one, doubt whether we could run the risk. I do not want to point the accusing finger at the right hon. Gentleman now, but, because of the deficiency payments system, we have flogged our land. I believe that in the last 20 years we have been trying to get more out of our soil than we should have been doing. This is something which the French, Germans and Italians have not yet done. If we think of the strength of the soil as a bank, then we have drawn on that bank far more heavily than they have. In their soil they have great reserve and potential. I believe that in less than a decade it will enable them to catch up with us.
As to the prediction of an 8 per cent. expansion, we know in round figures what our agriculture is now producing. In cash terms it adds up to £2,500 million. An 8 per cent. increase must not only be 8 per cent. on top of that, but an additional sum, because, if we go in, we shall be losing some 10 per cent. of the farmers' incomes by virtue of various subsidies and grants which will not be permitted under C.A.P. Therefore, I suggest that the increase of 8 per cent. must

be much more in cash terms than just 8 per cent. on existing incomes.
I find it difficult to reconcile this optimistic forecast of an 8 per cent. increase in expansion with the claim that food for the housewife will go up by no more than 2½ per cent. a year. I cannot reconcile those two figures. If they were probed I believe that the conclusion would be that, apart from the fortunes of the so-called barley barons, agriculture as a whole would not gain by our entry.
I have spoken about the White Paper. I find many holes in that document. However, I believe that most of us will make up our minds on the issue not on any objective search for arguments in the White Paper, but perhaps subjectively. I find the subjective arguments more persuasive, as, I suspect, do most hon. Members.
I am opposed to the entry of this country into the Common Market because I have no wish to live, or for my children to live, in what must evolve into a superstate. I do not believe that super-states were made by God for the benefit of ordinary people. They are the device of politicians who want to walk the world stage and talk of power.
We in this country have certain values and ideals. They embrace those rather overworked words, "freedom, justice and democracy", but they summarise a set of values which I believe will be of increasing importance in the world. We have a great rôle to play in giving nine-tenths of the human race something of those values which we cherish. My fear is that if we become part of what must inexorably be a super-state—once we share a unified economy—we shall have those values compromised, weakened and diluted. We shall then be less equipped to export them to a world which will one day thirst to share them with us.

1.14 p.m.

Mr. John Robertson: I want to concentrate my remarks on the probable effects of Britain's entry into the E.E.C. on the Scottish people. Perhaps more than any others, the Scots are entitled to speak on this subject, for, some years ago, we joined just such a common market. I must say that ever since we have had feelings that we would have been much better off had we stayed out. The arguments then were the same : that


we could go in and join this erstwhile enemy, England, and influence what the English were doing by convincing them that the Scottish way was better.
In the everyday world the tail will seldom wag the dog. The picture that the pro-Marketeers are painting is of Britain joining this Community of 200 million people, shaping its institutions, and giving its people our moral values. But the little British tail wagging the big European dog does not convince me.
I admit that I am parochial in outlook. We heard about Australia this morning. I do not want to pull a "kith and kin" argument, but it is there when I think of Australia. If we go into the Common Market, I shall have to think of my brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces in Australia as aliens and myself as a countryman of some of the folk with whom I was falling out not so long ago. It will not be easy.
I had hoped that this morning the Minister would say something about the problems of Scottish agriculture. He dealt with the general picture, but there are some special problems of agriculture related only to Scotland. I had hoped, too, that he would tell us whether the guarantees and assurances which he had given for horticulture applied with equal force to Scotland as to England. Horticulturists in Scotland are sure that they do not. They have already decided that they are on the way out. It would be a great pity if that were so. If the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and hon. Friends who are suggesting that we should go into the E.E.C want to persuade me, they will need to do more than paint a general picture.
Recently the Secretary of State for Scotland, like a Scottish Moses leading the Scottish people full of blind faith and bright hopes towards the English Channel waiting for the waters to part so that we could enter the promised land, told us that this was the way for the Scots to seek progress. With an increase of 13,000 unemployed this week and the male unemployment rate in Scotland at 9 per cent., I think that the Scottish people will want a wee bit more assurance than they have had hitherto.
My right hon. Friend talked about the spirit of the Treaty of Rome and how the Community will evolve a regional

policy. It has had 12 years to do so and the best that the Commission has so far produced is a recommendation for the Council of Ministers this week. According to the criteria contained within that recommendation, Scotland would not get a brass farthing for industrial development from the Community, because, although compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, it is not all that good, compared with Southern Italy it is a kingdom of heaven upon earth. Let us hear something more definite about regional policies.
We are told that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which would prevent the British Government operating a regional policy. That is so, but we are not in the E.E.C. now. Do we have a regional policy which works? We have had one year of Conservative Government and an increase of nearly 34,000 unemployed. Has that been a marvellous achievement under their regional policy? What will happen if next week we get a closure of U.C.S.? There would be another 7,000 directly unemployed and, multiplied by three, we would find the extra number of people who are fully unemployed. And that under a Government who say that they are operating a regional policy. They expect us to believe that if we go into Europe someone in Brussels will have more concern for the Scottish people than we are able to convince this Government to have. I find that difficult to believe.
Some of my hon. Friends seem to lose their critical faculties, which they would normally apply to other aspects of Parliamentary business, when they are dealing with Europe. When talking about the Common Market they become starry-eyed. They are like pompous and portly suitors seeking the hand of the sprightly Marianne. They forget their ordinary commonsense, and behave like young lovers.
I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) to grow up. He is not normally like this. Normally we listen with great attention to what he says. He applies his great analytical skill and unemotional approach to many matters. He is usually able to give us an objective picture. But not so on the question of Europe. My hon. Friend's eloquence


was not unexpected, but his passion for Europe led him astray.
I was astonished to find that my hon. Friend was unable to grasp the idea of the peasant problem in France. It seems incredible that a Scotsman should not be able to understand the special relationship between a peasant and his land, between a crofter and his land. For 100 years successive Governments have been trying to solve the crofting problem in Scotland. They have offered bribes to secure amalgamations. The Government have never understood why the Scottish crofter hangs on to his land and refuses to become part of a larger unit. Do the Government not understand that that piece of land is the crofter's grip on life, and that he will give it up only over his dead body? I often think that one of the greater stories of our time is that of the men of Knoydart. A few Scottish Highlanders went out in a boat to claim back their ancestral land, to reclaim their crofts.
I invite anyone to go to France and ask a French peasant to give up his 15 acres of land. His land keeps not only him and his wife and children but probably his father and maybe his grandfather, and also some of his brothers and their children. It is not a question of a farming family. It is a matter of providing for a tribe from those 15 acres.
I do not blame Pompidou or the French for getting their regional policy written into the Treaty right at the beginning. I cannot understand the Government's saying that they are willing to share the burden of keeping in operation this inefficient farming system, but yet do not find it possible to give an extra £1 to our decent Scottish crofter. He will have to pay the extra price for food, but he will not get the extra wages.
Nor can I understand the argument that this country is terribly bad economically, that we are behind every other country in Europe when it comes to growth, that our industrial investment has not been keeping pace with theirs, that our people will not work, that they are lazy, that they go on strike, and so on. It is said that in Europe growth has been phenomenal, that they get more holidays, higher wages and more social benefits. Yet we are to go in and join

those who are so efficient. They have made so much progress, we have made none, yet we are to go in and beat them.
I do not know how we can possibly do that, particularly as the Germans are already able to beat us in exporting to Australia industrial goods on which we enjoy Commonwealth preference. How shall we compete? All these stories are phoney. Consider, for example, the question of growth. This is a good one. If someone grows from one to two, that is phenomenal, but if someone else grows from four to six, that is a bit less. Where does one start when considering this question of growth?
I, too, have gone around Europe a bit. The best way to judge things is to use one's eyes, and the best thing to do is not to hang around the super hotels which are used by the delegates to the Council of Europe, but to go down the back streets, to visit the places at which people normally buy their food, and to make an assessment of the houses in which working people live.
Britain is still one of the most prosperous nations in Europe. We come next after the Scandinavian countries. I am anxious not to get tied up in European politics, European attitudes and European outlooks. I want to be convinced that going into Europe will be a good thing. I have not yet heard an argument by a pro-Marketeer to make me change my mind. I believe that entry into Europe will be a disaster for Scotland.

1.26 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I propose to follow what was said by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) to this extent only, that, like him, I take the view that regional policy is one of the things which must concern those who are in favour of entry into the Common Market. I go so far as to say that the Government must make it clear that until such time as the Community itself has evolved a more effective regional policy they will stretch the letter of the Treaty to that extent that is necessary to ensure that we are able to maintain at least as effective a differentiation in favour of the regions as we have now.
Another matter which concerns me is the effect which our entry into Europe is likely to have on some people. We


shall raise our standards of living, because our incomes will rise more than the cost of living. That will be fine for the population as a whole, and for those who depend on State benefits. The latter can be compensated for any increase in the cost of living because it will be possible to increase State benefits out of the larger national product. The people about whom I am bothered are those who have put aside money from the proceeds of hard work during their lives, those who have amassed a sum of capital so that they are able to enjoy a standard of living higher than that which the State provides, but who see the value of their capital reduced because of the additional money that they have to pay for comforts in their old age.
I wonder whether it would be possible to evolve some specifically tailored savings scheme for them. I wonder whether it would be possible to bring in some specific kind of investment, guaranteed against capital loss, which would enable them to participate in the rising prosperity of the nation as a whole.
Those are important details, but we come back every time to the central fact, which is that three successive Governments, drawn alternatively from one side of the House and the other, have come to the conclusion that membership of the E.E.C. offers this country by far the best hope for the future.

Mr. Roland Moyle: Mr. Roland Moyle (Lewisham, North) rose——

Sir A. Meyer: I cannot give way, not in the short space of time that I have available.
Three successive Governments have taken the view that joining Europe provides the best hope not merely for attaining, but for sustaining, steady expansion, and by far the best hope for making long-term provision for the security of this country.
In that connection I should like to make two points which seem to me to be important, but which Government spokesmen would find it difficult to make. The first is that as an industrial nation Britain cannot continue to rely on the traditional industries which have been the bread and butter of her trade in the past. We must move into the new generation of science-based industries, and increasingly leave

developing countries to rely on the traditional ones. But those science-based industries require a very large home market to enable production to be on a scale which will cover the huge research and development costs involved, and it must be a protected home market. We can see the reason at once when we look at what happens over aero-egines and similar products. The Americans simply cannot allow British science-based industry to compete on level terms in the American domestic market. That is why for those industries simply a large home market will not do, and a free trade area will not do. We need the element of protection that we can get only from an economic union, a community.
My other point is purely political. Our country and our way of life are in serious danger from a discrepancy in time-scale. The Americans, because of their tragic experiences in Vietnam, are beginning to lose their will to expend their life and treasure in defending the rich continent of Western Europe. The Russians are also, I believe, gradually losing their will to impose their system by force or trickery on Western Europe. But the point is that the Americans are losing their will very much faster than the Russians are losing theirs. That discrepancy strikes me as being very dangerous.
If the Russians, with that time discrepancy, see Western Europe torn by increasing divisions, and if Britain fails to join the Common Market at this stage, new and dangerous divisions will undoubtedly be created in Western Europe. Then the leaders in the Kremlin, however reasonable they may be, will not be able to stand up against hard-line Communists in Russia who will tell them, "Here you see the divided bourgeois world. It is the duty of a Communist regimé to exploit those divisions." In such a situation, our safety can lie only in promoting further unity in Western Europe. [Interruption.] I am sorry that that displeases those who would like to see the Russians achieve their aims in Western Europe.
These and other more orthodox but equally telling arguments put forward by speakers on both sides, who constitute that coalition of moderates on both sides who support entry into the Common Market, add up to a formidable case which the opponents of entry must


answer. It is not enough for them to point out the risks of entry to the E.E.C., because by far the most dangerous course we could embark upon is to do nothing. The risks of joining may be great ; the risks of not joining are infinitely greater. The opponents of entry must produce an alternative case on which they can agree. I can hardly wait to see what will be that alternative policy which will unite in common support the National Front, the Communist Party, the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).

Mr. Body: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the one man who has consistently advocated the course about which he is now speaking is Sir Oswald Mosley, ever since 1944?

Sir A. Meyer: I am not attempting a process of guilt by association. I am not saying that a policy is wrong because it is supported by certain people. I am merely saying that those who oppose entry have a duty to produce an alternative policy and to agree on it, and on the day when the hon. Member for Penistone is in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston on an alternative solution I shall listen with great attention to what they have to say.

1.35 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: There is no doubt that the debate has reflected, and should reflect, the anxieties felt by our constituents about the choice that we must make. But it is also important that it should make clear to our constituents the choice which our country faces if we do not make the very difficult choice of entry. That certainly represents a historic change, but not to join does not mean that we face no change in our position in the world, our standard of living and our way of life. It does mean that whatever changes take place will occur outside our control.
Sometimes the argument appears to be carried on as if there had been no change in our status in the world or our economic relationships with our trading partners in this century. That is not so. Moreover, the opponents speak as if the economic

policies we have been pursuing for most of this century were more successful than those of comparable countries.
In a realistic speech on Wednesday, the right hon. Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) reminded us that the Ottawa Agreements were based on the idea of an exchange of industrial products with food and raw materials but that since they were signed, and the introduction of Imperial Preference, Commonwealth countries have built up their industries behind high tariffs. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food underlined this point today in his opening speech.
It is sometimes thought that preference means that there are no tariffs, but in fact British industry still has to overcome very high tariffs in Commonwealth countries. It was my first visits to Australia and Canada that made me realise how serious the situation was and began to incline me towards my present position on the issue. I believe that those Agreements, introduced by a Conservative Government, did more harm than good to this country, because for a long period they provided soft markets for British goods, which prevented our industry from facing up to the competition, not just in price but in standards, efficiency, design and so on, which has been increasing during the whole period.
The right hon. Lady claimed that she was an imperialist. I am not. But I am not a free trade liberal either. Here I agree absolutely with the brilliant speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), even though he pinched some of my arguments. I was going to refer briefly to the common agricultural policy, not because I like it—nobody does—[Interruption]—nobody has ever suggested that we like it, but there are many things in the world that I do not like, but which I must accept. I have to make a choice, and here I make my choice. I believe that although the common agricultural policy may remain in its present form its content will change very radically. It is essential that those affected by the rise in prices caused by that policy are strongly protected. That is why I hope that we shall have a Labour Government by the time we enter the E.E.C.
I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead when he referred to the remark of my right hon.


Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) that we were witnessing the end of 120 years of cheap food. That was a nice bit of Cobdenite liberalism, but who is to say that our cheap food policy has been such a brilliant success?
The rise of this country to industrial and economic dominance took place before the repeal of the corn laws, and within 25 years of the corn laws being repealed our economy started to decline relative to that of other industrial countries. Our farm workers gained nothing out of it and they still have not caught up with the rise in incomes of other sections of the community, despite the fact that agriculture has been supported by successive Governments since the war.
Given the difficulties that we have faced, in particular over the balance of payments, are we sure, compared with the relative success since the war of the E.E.C. countries, that we are always right in our economic policies and that the balance between agricultural and industrial output has been right, on economic or as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) asked, on social grounds?
I deplore the tendency for us to say that everything we do is best when it clearly is not. There are some things that we do best, and we should take pride in them. But there are other things that we clearly do not do best, and we should admit that. Indeed, we have not been successful with our economic policies for many years.
I turn to the political arguments basic to this issue. Why was the Community formed in the first place and in particular why was it formed as an Economic Community? It was because the founders realised the dangers and damage done to Europe and the world in this century by the growth of economic nationalism.
In the heyday of nineteenth century laissez-faire economic forces were thought to be self-regulating and were quite separate from politics. This was all right at a time when we dominated world industry and world economy and when these forces were largely controlled and managed by the City of London. But the growth of large industrial populations with political influence, particularly in democratic countries, resulted in the

growth of the effective demand for higher living standards.
This has increased the pressure on governments to take more and more responsibility for the performance of their national economies and this, in turn, has led to increased tendencies towards nationalism. We have seen it throughout this century, and that nationalism has, in my lifetime, had disastrous results, with, among other things, two world wars.
If we now refuse the opportunity to enter the Common Market—I think it is generally admitted that this will be the last opportunity for many years—we will condemn ourselves to a competitive struggle in which our main competitors will be immensely stronger and more self-confident than we are likely to be. They will organise the European market in their own interests and certainly not in ours. A particularly good example is in regional policy, for their regional policies will be organised in the interests of their regions and against ours, and we will be powerless to do anything about it.
I do not apologise for treating these matters historically. There is a tendency to judge everything only by what is happening today and what happened yesterday and not to realise that we are in the middle of a continuing historical process and that we must look back at what has been taking place for a long time if we are to judge effectively, what is happening at the present time.
This process of the organisation of Europe against our interests can be compared with the formation in the early part of last century of the German Zollverein, and that caused more anxiety in this country and more anti-German feeling than anything else, and it was also one of the causes of the first war.
I am not one of those who take an easy view of what will happen if we do not join the Common Market. Instead, I take a grim view about it because I believe that if we now refuse entry whatever Government are then in power will find themselves with no foreign policy at all and no friends in the world. [HON. MEMBERS : "Rubbish."]
The countries of E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth would make the best arrangements they could with the strongest economic force in Europe, and that would certainly not be us. We


should have struck a blow at the friends of Britain in Europe and particularly at the Socialists and trade unionists, who would have suffered a crushing defeat.
I believe that in the next election in Germany, Willy Brandt and the Social Democrats would, in those circumstances, be swept away. Europe would turn to the right. The United States, as one can see from Mr. George Ball's article in The Times today, would turn away from a country so lacking in self-confidence and so uncertain of its future as to be unable or unwilling to face the risks and opportunities of entry into the European Community.
What would be the effect on our politics here at home in that situation? As our economic strength and political influence declined, there would grow in Britain what we have seen not for the first time this century, a mood of frustration. We saw it at the time of Suez as well as in the early part of the century. We saw it to some extent during the 'thirties. That, in turn, could lead to a mood of xenophobia and so give to the populists and the demagogues their chance—and there are several who fancy themselves in that rôle waiting in the wings.

1.47 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I hope that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) will forgive me if I do not comment on all of the subjects he raised, though I shall be speaking about a number of them.
When I came to this House a year ago I was opposed for political reasons to our joining the E.E.C. However, I knew that I owed it to my constituents to look at the matter afresh and to see if there were new perspectives. I knew that I had to study the problem as deeply and as closely as I could, because I owed to them the exercise of my judgment and not merely the expression of my prejudices.
I have tried to do this, and today I think very differently from the way I thought a year ago. In the campaign which I shall begin in my constituency this evening and continue in the autumn on this great issue, I shall feel bound to advise my constituents that I consider membership of the E.E.C. to be in the

country's and in their best interests. I shall so advise them, because as their representative in Parliament, I have a duty to give a lead. I shall, of course, listen to their fears and misgivings. There will then be ample time to discuss all those matters with them before the decision is taken here, where I believe it should be taken.
To say all this is not to say that I have travelled this road easily or quickly or that all my apprehensions have been removed. The situation was particularly cogently put in a recent document issued by the N.F.U., in which it was stated :
The comparison is not between a future inside the Community and the status quo. It is between one form of change and another for good or for ill which will undoubtedly affect the fortunes of us all.
This has become ever-clearer to me during the last year, and throughout I have had this question in my mind : what is the best course for this country, and what is best for the people I have the honour to represent?
As I have asked that question, two things have preyed on my mind more than anything else, the thought of the town of Cannock and the future of my son. Cannock is one of those industrial towns which has given much to this country and which has been part of that great West Midlands conurbation that we might look upon as the cradle of Britain's industrial greatness but which has received so little—not a depressed area but, in many ways, a depressing one. What is the future for that town and those people? What can give them the facilities they have up to now been denied? What is the best thing for them?
The other thing I think of constantly is my family, particularly my small child, who will grow into manhood as the next century approaches. How is he to have the same high hopes with which his grandfather entered this century, and how are we to make sure that his hopes are not so rudely shattered? I am persuaded that, for both, the hopes will be higher if, with courage and determination, we take the opportunity of partnership which we are now offered. I am also persuaded that our determination must not be sabotaged by delusions, by dreams and visions which have no basis in reality. Let us not talk of an artificially foisted federation. Let us grow together without


the techniques of the political hothouse——

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman said that when he first came to the House a year ago he was disinclined to support entry into the Common Market. He quite honourably changed his mind. Did he tell his constituents before being elected that he was committed to being taken into the Common Market by his party without a General Election?

Mr. Cormack: I answer to my constituents as the hon. Gentleman must answer to his. When I was elected I made it plain that I was opposed to entry and would need a lot of persuading. During the year I have kept my constituents constantly informed about where I stand. They know exactly how my mind is working. I have a meeting tonight and 10 other meetings are arranged in the future, and my constituents will be kept informed. The hon. Gentleman must look after his constituents and leave me to look after mine.

Mr. John Mendelson: A fraudulent prospectus.

Mr. Cormack: What caused me great misgiving were the political implications. I was particularly worried about the Treaty of Rome. But then one looks at the practice and, although documents, blueprints and treaties have their place, they are at best only a faltering expression of a spirit, and it is the spirit that matters.
I am prepared to admit that I was wrong. Too many of us have been bound by rigid and false logic. We have applied the laws of mathematics without regard to the wisdom of experience and the practice of statecraft. That is why I was much reassured by the recent Paris meeting from which came a definite answer to those who feared that we should be rushed headlong into an artificial federation, which I believe would be unnecessary, impracticable and undesirable.
In the immediate future we should concentrate on the practical difficulties and problems which membership will undoubtedly bring. Some of them were movingly outlined on Wednesday by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) when he spoke of people on fixed incomes and

low wage earners, for whom no Government in recent years has been able to do enough. It is right that we should think of them and their problems, and it is right too, and today it is appropriate, that we should think of the problems of my local farmers, who accept that entry will bring great challenge and great opportunity but who want to be assured of a clear avenue of approach through the N.F.U. to the Council in Brussels ; who feel that in any political organisation British farmers have much to teach European farmers, just as many European farmers have much to teach us in cooperative marketing ; who are particularly concerned that they should not be financially impoverished, and that our established marketing boards should be allowed to continue to flourish. These are some of the immediate problems to which we should apply ourselves.
All this is not to say that we should ignore our visions or forget our ideals. A strong Western Europe is what we all want, for this part of Europe has been the nursery of our civilisation and must be its guardian still. In our visions and ideals we should forget party differences. I hope that there will be a sufficient number of hon. Members who will be able to unite across the Floor in October when this historic decision is taken. The first day of January, 1973, will come and go. There will be another new year's day, but there will be a new spirit at work.
I will quote from a letter I have received from a constituent, one of the many letters we are all receiving from people who are apprehensive about these changes :
I hope next time you go to Cannock you will stand before our war memorial and look at the names of the men inscribed there, who gave their lives that we would not be dictated to by a foreign power, and search your soul.
I have done that, and I searched my soul last Sunday when I had the privilege of attending evensong at King's College Chapel, Cambridge. This glorious monument to the best in our civilisation was packed, mainly with young people from all over the world, particularly from Europe. I stood next to a German and I did search my soul. I thought that I could, perhaps, write a footnote to what might be the most glorious chapter of all in the history of our civilisation, the chapter that I would call "Pax Europa."

1.58 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I shall not detain the House for long but merely make one or two points which will possibly put a new slant on the situation. I will deal first with what was said by the Minister of Agriculture. He referred to value-added tax and said that it would not apply to food. Yet we are fully aware that the first of the three taxes to be harmonised in the E.E.C. is the sales tax, namely, V.A.T. If V.A.T. were not applied to food in any of the countries in the E.E.C, I might perhaps believe the right hon. Gentleman, but it is.
In the French system the standard rate of V.A.T. is 23 per cent., and the reduced rate for food is 7·5 per cent. In the German system the standard rate of V.A.T. is 11 per cent., and the reduced rate for food 5·5 per cent. In the modified French system, the standard rate is 9·5 per cent. and the reduced rate for food 3·17 per cent. Once we are in the European Economic Community and there is harmonisation of taxation, of which V.A.T. is an essential part, we shall be pressurised to apply V.A.T. to food, and it will be a fait accompli.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis rose——

Mr. Heffer: I will not give way.

Mr. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way for just a second?

Mr. Heffer: Please !

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Lewis rose——

Mr. Heffer: All right.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend often takes part in debates and I do not interrupt him very often. I want to take the matter a step further. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister has advised me that, assuming that the Minister agrees to it at the Commission, as would be the case, when that stage is reached we in the House cannot amend, alter or reject it in any way? Even if we debate it, we must debate it in such a way as to not frustrate what the Minister has agreed in the Commission.

Mr. Heffer: I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I am trying to confine my remarks, as I have given an assurance to Mr. Deputy Speaker that I shall try to be brief. My hon. Friend's point has underlined what I was saying.
The arguments about V.A.T. produced by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the fence do not hold water. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who unfortunately, is not present, has opposed V.A.T. in the House and the Labour Party are pledged to the opposition of V.A.T. How can anyone genuinely say that they will support V.A.T. as a price of entry into the Common Market and forget their pledges to the people on this pernicious and obnoxious tax? That matter ought to be underlined.
Another point arising from the right hon. Gentleman's speech concerned the common agricultural policy. It is amazing that almost no one, whether pro or anti the Common Market, is in favour of the common agricultural policy. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), despite his defence of the French farmers, did not say that the C.A.P. was a good policy. He did not say that we should accept it. The right hon. Gentleman gave the reason today. It was interesting that he said that the problem was a food problem, not a farmers' problem. That is absolutely true, because what is at stake is the effect of food prices on the British people. It is not a question whether there are any starving farmers. One would have to go a long way in Britain to find a starving farmer, although some of our agricultural workers are not in such a good situation. The farmers do not seem to have been doing so badly under our present system.
Writing in The Times Business Section on 16th September of last year, M. Paul Fabra, the economics editor of Le Monde, said :
The E.E.C. countries should look to Britain for their model on agricultural policy instead of making Britain repudiate her own system in favour of the European one which has clearly shown its noxiousness.
That is the position.
Right hon. and hon. Members will know that I have made speeches as passionate as any about entry into the Common Market. But the issue that decided my opposition to entry was the common agricultural policy. I have always said that it was wrong, and I have said that when we negotiated we should say that this matter should be totally negotiated from top to bottom, and that


if it could not be negotiated we should withdraw from the negotiations.
I said that because I am not prepared to sacrifice the British working people on the altar of some magnificent dream which may or may not come into existence. As a working-class lad, I am not prepared to see my people carrying increasing burdens for a dream. I am concerned with how this matter will affect the British working class. The ramshackle arrangements which have been organised by the Government Front Bench—I exclude hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite—will have a very serious effect on our people's living standards. That fact cannot be escaped by rhetoric.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stechford made an absolutely magnificent speech. It was a speech of which any Front Bencher on the Government side of the House should have been proud, because it was better than any made from the Government Front Bench. If it were not for my right hon. Friend, the Government would have no champions in the House. But he did not mention V.A.T. or the common agricultural policy. He skirted over these basic problems which would affect our working class. He dealt with one or two other issues.
On the question of regional policy, I come from an area which yesterday had 40,000 unemployed. Today it has more unemployed. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that proposals were going forward concerning the central areas. When I wanted to intervene to ask for an assurance that it would not apply to areas such as Merseyside, the North-East Coast and Scotland, he would not give way. But we are entitled to know what will happen to those areas. Are the Government prepared to pledge that it will not apply to our people? It is all very well talking about the Common Market countries accepting investment grants as against investment incentives. But investment grants of no more than 20 per cent. in areas such as mine will not assist our problems or overcome our difficulties. We have to have an answer to that question.
In conclusion, we have heard a lot in the debate about socialist internationalism and the alternative, certainly upstairs and sometimes in the Chamber, and across the road last week. I am

an internationalist I believe passionately in international working-class solidarity. When sections of workers in France, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Africa or Asia become involved in a struggle for better conditions I am with them because I recognise that their struggle is the same sort of struggle as that which my people have always had to have, not just from the day I was born but long before then. Working people never get anything unless they fight and struggle for it. Our movement was built on the basis of international solidarity in this struggle for better conditions.
Let no one in the House, especially from this side, suggest that, because I do not want to accept the conditions of the Common Market, I am not an internationalist and that I do not believe in the international solidarity of the working class. I believe in it passionately. I had hopes that by getting into the Common Market we should be able to build a socialist Europe. But in December, 1969, the locks were put on, the bolts were shut tight and we were told from that point onwards, "If you come in, you accept not only the Treaty of Rome but everything that has been accepted up to now". I am not prepared to accept that as a condition of entry.
There are alternatives which have not been tried in this country. Here, like my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) last night, I shall lose Members on the other side of the House. We must be bold enough and courageous enough to put our Socialist policies into operation in this country. I hope that the next Labour Government will not pussy-foot around with the City of London. I hope that we shall not be afraid to extend and expand public ownership. If we do, we shall give a lead to the workers in Europe and elsewhere to follow us in the great struggle for building a new society.
I still believe in the united socialist States of Europe. I still believe in a united Europe on terms of social democracy and basic Socialist internationalism. We shall not achieve them with the terms which have been put before us by the Government. I therefore hope that all my comrades in the Labour Party will take note of what I have said and will reject the Government's policy.

2.12 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will forgive me if I do not comment on the remarks he made in his most sincere and moving speech.
I am not faced with the problem of having to convince myself on this issue, for I convinced myself 10 years ago and I have not moved one jot either way since. [Laughter.] To those like my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who is a real friend of mine, who laugh at my statement that I made up my mind long ago, I say that it is as honourable to make up one's mind on the basic principle of what one has been brought up to believe in and has experienced throughout childhood and on a belief about what has made this country tick over the generations and become great and wealthy as it is to wait and see which way one's thoughts may develop as time goes on.
So much has been said about figures that it is unnecessary for anyone, certainly for me, to talk about them. Before I say a few words about the campaign run by the Government, I wish to question something which was said yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. Whatever my right hon. Friend says is of great moment and of great interest. He is a man of great experience and competence. Therefore, when he says something I wish to make sure that I understand it correctly. He said :
… Parliament, within a certain area, is competent to deal with certain things ; but national Parliaments will control a great deal of the whole for a very long time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1971 ; Vol. 821, c. 1710.]
It is not good enough to tell the British people, "Do not worry about national sovereignty, for your Parliament will control a great deal of what happens in Britain for a long time". What I want to know is, what will we not control? People have said, "You do not have to worry about the law. That will not be messed about with in any major sense". But wait until my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) says in what way the laws of this country will be changed as a result of entry into Europe.
We heard a wonderful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with

Boston (Mr. Body). It was impressive and great. We heard a wonderful speech, in which the other point of view was put, from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) on the first day of the debate. We heard a great speech, containing new ideas, yesterday afternoon from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) What concerns and frightens me is that none of those speeches will be read except in the restricted Press of the small area of those Members' constituencies. The debate has been almost exclusively between the Prime Minister and the wobbling, tightrope act of the Leader of the Opposition, plus what the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), said yesterday.
I congratulate the Government on running the slickest, most efficient public relations campaign this country has ever seen. It is the modern pressgang in operation. If anybody thinks that that is an exaggeration, let me say what I mean. It is far worse than the old press-gang, because the most it could do was to fill Nelson's ships with men, but only limited numbers of men. The modern pressgang sets out to convert millions of people against their will by misusing taxpayers' money to convince them about something they do not want to be convinced about.
The Prime Minister said :
Nor would it be in the interests of the European Economic Community that we should join without the full-hearted support of Parliament and the people".
I want to know what that means. It does not mean mounting this enormous campaign, the latest star attraction of which was the advertisement in The Times yesterday. The only mistake about that advertisement was that it should have been in the Daily Mirror. I will not read it because most hon. Members will have read it and it is obvious what it was about. But it is significant that the Government are so petrified about the paucity of their case that they, or the pro-Marketeers, have to indulge in using the names of certain people. I mention one or two of them : Henry Cooper, to give a lead to the sports fans of boxing in this country ; Jack Hawkins for the cinema ; Sir Adrian Boult and Benjamin Britten for music ; Michael Balcon for


films ; John Edrich, Ted Dexter, Denis Compton—and practically the whole of the British Test team—for cricket. There has grown up in Britain a system where patronage by Government and public bodies is so vast that there is scarcely a major figure in the nation who cannot be affected in one way or another. When both sides of the House, when each Government that we have had, the dispensers of patronage over the years, have determined that Britain shall go in, and have found not one possible argument to advance against it, one now begins to see the result of Government patronage. One begins to see the way in which the campaign to get Britain in is to be fought. This is a disgrace if the Prime Minister is not going to give the British people some way of expressing an opinion more effectively than they have had yet.
Is it surprising that there has been a slight swing towards the Government view, with this enormous publicity going on, with the whole of the Press—with the exception of the Daily Express—the whole of the television and radio, putting the Government's case all the time, the Government spending enormous sums of taxpayers' money, sending literature all over the country? Is it to be wondered that there is this false swing towards the Government's point of view?
Never forget that after the Prime Minister said what he said and promised what he promised, there are still at the end of the day no fewer than 10 million to 12 million adult British people who want no part of what the Government are forcing them to do. In those conditions surely there is something that the Government can do for the British people, and that is allow them to express an opinion, if in no other way, in this House by the Government side having a free vote. Surely this is the least that Members of Parliament can ask. If we cannot ask it here and get an answer here, there is nowhere that we can do so. The average back-bench Member in this debate has no hope whatsoever of being widely reported, for the debate is so overloaded and over-weighted on both Front Benches. This is no criticism of the means of communication.
I have spoken too long and I promised to be short, but I must say this.

When I decided that I could not support this proposal, I did so because when the former Prime Minister said, "We have decided to apply for membership of the Common Market and to negotiate", I knew that from that moment onwards the whole of the British Com-monwealth, but chiefly the white Commonwealth, would start running round looking for new markets to replace their markets with us. I knew that from that moment the British Commonwealth would gradually be stranded, and so it has proved.
Even yesterday we had the Foreign Secretary saying, as an excuse, that the Commonwealth trade has gradually become less and less in proportion from 1960 to 1970. For heaven's sake, that was when we first started to go in. There was the threat to leave the Commonwealth, after having agreed to allow South Africa to leave. That is when we had the final threat to the disintegration of the Commonwealth—not from Australia or New Zealand but from here.
I look at the history of this country for a moment and I say to myself, "Where has our history been?" We have been a great nation because we have lived by trade. We have been able to live by trade because the world has been our trade. As the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said in the debate last night, the world has been our trade, and here we are looking for the geese that lay golden eggs in Europe, ready to hide behind a tariff wall in Europe.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: A small tariff wall.

Mr. Fell: Very well, a tariff wall of between 7½ per cent. and 20 per cent. It is not so small. It is exactly the reverse of what our history has taught us to be. In other words, we are a little scared island off Europe. The men of faith and courage are the men who are against going into Europe to find the easy way.
May I finish by quoting what a great Member of this House said about Europe and Britain's association with Europe :
Where do we stand? We are not members of the European defence community, nor do we intend to be merged in a European Federal system. We feel we have a special relation


to both. This can be best expressed by prepositions, by the preposition ' with ' but not ' of '—we are with them, but not of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 891.]
Those words were said in 1953, which is not all that long before we tried to get in for the first time, by the greatest statesman of this century, Sir Winston Churchill.

2.27 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: Like the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), I am a Commonwealth man. I compliment him and sympathise with him in this dynamic situation of the changing Commonwealth. However, that can wait. I am here to make my own speech. This will be the first speech today on fishing from a backbench Member. Both the Minister and I know a little about this, and nothing has been said today so far on this subject except by the Minister.
Before I come to that, however, I should like to comment on one or two other matters which have been dealt with in the debate today. There have been cascades of words and sheaves of statistics. I have been in my constituency and I should like to relate to the House the feelings of my constituents. I do not need a Gallup Poll. I do not need any referendum. I do not need to live in a sort of Swiss canton in order to find out how my people feel. I go on the fish dock to talk to workers there and listen. In all this cascade of words I wonder who convinces whom. A former speaker in this debate said that he has his views, and is not prepared to change them. I hear many views expressed. On whom can I depend? Should I be influenced by people with names like Kaldor in the New Statesman? I wonder. There are charges and counter-charges, with all the connotations of honourable men and others who are not so honourable.
I have listened to a wonderful speech on the Commonwealth from an hon. Member speaking sincerely and from his heart. But I see Commonwealth skittles going down day by day. Take Commonwealth sugar, for example. This has been discussed for about six months. I know of a man whom I would support against anyone in this disputation, who

sent a letter to the negotiator, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Peart: Before my hon. Friend leaves sugar. The gentleman in question is a friend of mine and he did send a letter. Since then there have been no negotiations. I hope that my hon. Friend in his acceptance of this letter will not assume that we will accept what the Chancellor of the Duchy did not do. I want to put on the record that there have been no negotiations and no guarantees. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Commonwealth sugar producers are very worried.

Mr. Johnson: I am indebted to my right hon. Friend for that addition and accept it. I am in difficulties, however, when it comes to matters in which I do not specialise, and then I will gladly take the word of those who are most affected. Another matter which was discussed was New Zealand butter and here I will accept the views of those who know more than me. The negotiating Minister from New Zealand said that it was a fair deal. As a Commonwealth man for many years I have to accept what those from the Commonwealth say. Where is the logic in my behaviour if I do not accept the words of those who negotiate for their own sections of society?
In my constituency there is keen anxiety over unemployment and a gnawing fear about the cost of food. Neither of these fears can be dispelled unless we burst out of this malaise in our economy. I cannot see us, with the aid of Commonwealth nations, ameliorating to the necessary extent our internal economic problems. If we were to associate with Eastern Europe I suppose that we would be termed a Comecon satellite. I cannot see us working on that basis nor can I see us working happily in a free trade area with North America. It is to Western Europe that I turn, and it is here that we have the chance of working on a basis of equality. If we accept the first point that we do need this larger association for necessary development, economic wealth and health, then it can be seen that in Western Europe there are sister nations with similar cultures to whom we can turn.
If we were in association with them we would be able to play, I hope, a leading rôle which would be impossible in


any other combination of nations. I am forced to reach this decision. I have been a member of the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee of the Council of Europe for five years and the most eloquent speech I heard, which went a long way towards putting me in my present position, was by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who spoke in 1967 at Strasbourg of the benefit which we could confer and receive through association and technological development in a Western European community.
The only genuine snag I can find in the package is to do with the heavy burden on the balance of payments. I have never been a chauvinist. I am a "working-class lad" like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). We both had much the same beginnings. I agree with what he said. We are both internationalists. I feel a niggle inside me in some indefinable way when I am told that my people should pay taxes to keep the "inefficient French peasants" in business. For good measure I am sometimes told that these are "conservative Gaullist" peasants, which gives me another niggle.
For years I have campaigned for overseas aid to African and other developing nations. I have listened also to Dr. Mansholt speaking at Strasbourg. He has told me that in the last 10 years he and his colleagues of the E.E.C. have "put off the land" something like 5 million peasants. He behaves, and I use that word quite fairly, in the same way as Alf Robens did in putting people out of the pits, including my father, when carrying out the National Coal Board organisation. I have accepted this in my domestic economy for the future good and health of the industry. In the next decade, when another 5 million go off the land in Western Europe, there will be a reduction in these heavy payments. There is no equity for us in them, and I kick against them as much as anyone else, but in about seven years' time they will have diminished appreciably.

Mr. Paget: Has my hon. Friend heard of President Pompidou's observation that halting the drift from the land is no longer necessary, since Britain is now paying for it?

Mr. Johnson: My hon. and learned Friend is well versed in the dialectic of

our party and of the courts. I think that he has a point here. May I pass on? I turn now to a matter in which even he cannot interrupt—fisheries. I speak as a Member for Hull, which has a fish dock. What are the fears of the men there, whether sailing in the North Atlantic or in the middle waters?
They have two fears. The first is that the North-East Atlantic is over-fishea. The second is expressed in the view that "All foreigners are poachers, they are cheats, but we—" [Interruption.] There is some conflict here between the deep-water fleet and the inshore men. I have sympathy with them both, but my main sympathies lie with my constituents, who fish in the deep-water fleet. It is my duty to defend my own people.
The first thing that the Minister must fight for in September must be to ensure that there is no flag discrimination in the six to 12-mile belt. He talked about the 1964 Fisheries Convention signed by 18 nations, but of course, not by Norway. All the vessels in the deep-water ports could have got into that 12-mile limit a few months ago, but not now. What he must do is to say that we return to the 1964 position, which means that British fishermen have the six miles for ourselves, whether out of Eyemouth, Wick or anywhere else as the Norwegians have their six-mile belt. From six to 12 miles let conditions stay as they are.
If the Minister does not get that agreement then we are being discriminated against. It cannot be said in equity that we are getting a fair deal vis-à-vis the Scandinavians. We fished traditionally in the past in this belt off the Faroes, Greenland and Norway, as the Minister of Agriculture, who represents a fishing port, well knows. If there is discrimination it is ludicrous to talk about any equity or about this being a "common market", which is a phrase I do not like. There will be no common market there. He must be firm about this. If I had the time I could quote letters from leaders of the fishing industry saying that he must get the best terms in this matter that he can.
We heard talk earlier about Mersey-side. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Walton is not here now. We have much in common. He pleads for Merseyside. I plead for Humberside, as a much better place. I am not against


association with the Community, because I believe that both banks of Humberside will gain immeasurably from our entry. We have a wonderful estuary, which is now taking oil tankers up to 250,000 tons at Immingham. In Hull we face Scandinavia, the Baltic, the Netherlands and Germany. We could easily become another Hamburg or Rotterdam. We could have a steel complex, given more capital investment. There is not sufficient money in Yorkshire or even in England to develop Humberside—with or without a Midas scheme. We need Anglo-Norwegian, Anglo-Belgian and Anglo-Dutch money to develop as we should. My intellectual convictions and political instincts do not allow me to oppose entry into the Community.

2.41 p.m.

Mr. David Knox: I find myself in a large measure of agreement with what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). It will not surprise my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) if I say that I had little sympathy with most of the points that he made. I want to explain briefly why that is so.
If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, he suggested that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for the advertisement in The Times that contained a number of names of whom he made fun.

Mr. Fell: I did correct myself. I referred to the "pro-Common Market" people.

Mr. Knox: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I misunderstood him. At the same time, he said that the list contained the names of the current English test team, and he mentioned Denis Comp-ton. It is a few years since he played cricket for England. That was the temper of the whole of my hon. Friend's speech ; he was dealing with a world which existed 20 or 30 years ago, and not the world that exists today.
Secondly, my hon. Friend complained about the publicity and information that the Government have made available about the E.E.C. As I understood it, over the last few months the anti-Common Markeeters have been complaining bitterly about the lack of information, and

it comes rather strangely from them that they should now complain when the information is made available.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend complained that the public is being brain-washed. In my view public opinion is now reverting to the position that it has held for most of the years since 1961, when our first application was made. The majority of public opinion was in favour of entry in 1961 and up until 1967–68. Only in the last three years have the anti-Marketeers had a field day because those in favour of entry were unable to put over their points because of the negotiations which were going on. Only in that period has the anti-Marketeer case gained support from the public. Those of us who support the Market are not surprised that now that we can put over the case without qualifications, public opinion is reverting to its more natural position.
It will be fairly obvious that I am a very dedicated European and a strong supporter of the European Economic Community. I have been for 14 years—ever since the Community first came into being. I see no reason to apologise for that. As the years have gone by and I have studied the situation, I have become more and more deeply convinced that entry to the E.E.C. provides the only possible future for us. The decision on the Common Market will be the most important decision that this Parliament takes—and probably the most important decision that the House of Commons has taken since 1945. I regret that it was not possible to take a decision on this matter before I entered the House but it will be with considerable pride that I shall vote for entry in October.
I want to make one point about the importance of this decision. It is much more important that Britain should get into the Common Market than that it should have either a Conservative or a Labour Government. Our entry will influence Britain for the good to a much greater extent than if the party on these benches were to stay in power indefinitely. If the Labour Party had been in power and if my vote had decided whether we went into the Common Market and whether the Labour Party stayed in power, I should have voted without hesitation to go into the Common Market and to keep the Labour


Party in power, at least for a short time. I mention that because it is important that some people on this side should place on the record their belief that this is the most important decision that Britain faces at this time.
There has been a tendency to trivialise this issue. Far too much has been made about the price of butter. The real issue is the sort of country that we shall be in the future. It is important to recognise that we cannot keep on as we are going. We cannot do so because we are not what we were 25 years ago. We are not even what we were five years ago. In five years from now we shall not be what we are now. In recent years—especially since the end of the war—this country has been declining quickly in terms of its influence in the world. It has also been falling behind other countries in terms of living standards. I am concerned that those who take the opposite view to mine still seem to believe that Britain matters in the world and that in this world of continental powers we can "go it alone". In my view the position of Britain has declined beyond all recognition in recent years, and it is still declining now.
It is worth spending a few moments examining why that is so. In my view there are four principal reasons for our decline. The first is the effect of the two world wars. We spent a great deal of our overseas investment to fight those wars and win them. The fact that we no longer have sufficient overseas investment to pay for many of our imports has undoubtedly weakened this country and left us in a much more exposed and vulnerable position economically.
The second reason for our decline has been the evolution of the empire into the Commonwealth. That is not something that I opposed, but whereas we spoke on behalf of 650 million people in 1945, today we speak on behalf of 60 million people, and it follows as surely as day follows night that our influence in the world has declined as a result.
The third reason for our decline has been the emergence in the last 30 years of the United States and the Soviet Union as major world Powers, playing their part in the world at large as they have never done before and, in the last few years, the emergence of China and the E.E.C. In comparison with those Powers

we have declined in statue and our influence has accordingly declined.
The fourth reason for our decline is that we do not have access to a large domestic market. It is significant that those countries which have overtaken us in recent years are those which form part of a large domestic market. The right hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) made the point about the importance of a large demand market very powerfully in his wonderful speech yesterday afternoon.
I should have thought that the change in the position of Britain was obvious to most people, because all around us there is evidence of our decline, economically, in terms of defence and in respect of our lack of influence in the world.
Our economic performance since the war, under both Governments, has been pathetic, in terms of living standards, international trade and our balance of payments. This country is no longer able to defend itself ; it has to rely on the United States of America. In international affairs this country no longer counts. America and the Soviet Union sort out the major problems of the world. What Britain thinks is of no consequence. All these facts should by now have impressed on everyone the necessity for Britain joining a larger political and economic unit, and the only conceivable ' unit is Western Europe and the Common Market. Western Europe is geographically compact and one cannot have a cohesive political and economic unit unless it is geographically compact. Europe seems to me to be the only possible answer to our problem.
Against this great sweep of history and the inevitably of the movement to larger and larger units which we have seen in recent years, it seems to me that the terms of entry, although not irrelevant, are of secondary importance. We are seeing a movement towards continental Powers all over the world and Britain has opted out of this in recent years. The Common Market offers us the opportunity to opt into international affairs once again through joining a continental Power.
As I see it then, the real issue about the Common Market is the sort of country we are going to be in the future. Are we to be part of a big unit and to play a real part in the world, influencing


Europe and playing a part in the development of Europe? Do we wish through Europe to influence the great decisions which will affect us in the future? I believe that this is the nature of the British people. I believe that we like to be outward looking or, if I may put it another way, that we like to meddle in the affairs of the world. But we can do this only if we are part of a big unit, because big units are what count in the world today.
The reality is that if we continue on our own, we shall become Europe's offshore island. We shall not matter in world affairs. Our influence will continue to decline during the next 50 years and we shall be as internationally significant to the world as the Isle of Man is to the United Kingdom today. What is more, we shall be outside a Europe which is gaining in power, strength and influence. We shall not be part of a United Europe. We shall be dwarfed by Europe ; perhaps even threatened by her, and unable to do anything about it.
I respect the views of those who oppose the Common Market and who accept the logic of their arguments. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) did. He accepted that Britain' would become, relatively poorer outside the Market but rather liked the sort of Britain we had and did not want to change it too much. If I am doing my hon. Friend an injustice, I hope that he will disagree with me.

Mr. Body: May I just register my disagreement?

Mr. Knox: Then I will leave my hon. Friend alone. I respect the view of the anti-Marketeers if they will face up to the logic that if we opt out of the E.E.C. then our relative living standards will decline and our influence in the world will decline. I disagree with this view because I believe that it is the nature of this country to wish to participate in international affairs. I believe that our people want a rising standard of living. And I believe that Adlai Stevenson's revolution of rising expectation is as true of the people of this country as it is of the under-developed nations of whom he was talking. For these reasons I strongly support the decision of the Government to enter the E.E.C. on 1st January, 1973.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: During the speech of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) I felt like shouting
Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.
I find it disturbing, when one hears both the pro-Marketeers and the antis, that they destroy their case by exaggerating it. I recall some months ago on a television programme in Scotland a Scottish Conservative saying that, if we went into the Common Market, in a few months we should be swinging from the trees. A pro-Marketeer then said that, if we did not go in, we should all be in the poor house ; and that, if we did go in, it would be the elixir of life. I do not believe either of these concepts.
I am a very hesitant Common Marketeer and I have been influenced by what has taken place in these debates, which is an unusual thing in this place. When we come to these debates usually it is a dialogue of the deaf, to use an expression that is used in another context ; in other words we have already made up our minds and are seeking to influence people outside. But in this debate we have done what we have not done for all the years I have been here : we have sought to influence each other.
My experience of the last week has been that the best debates have not been on the Floor of the House, although the quality has been high, but in the Parliamentary Labour Party. In those discussions we can use, and do use, four-letter words, and we understand one another better when we use these words. We cannot do that in the Chamber, though I am sometimes sorely tempted to try to use them here. Our debates might be of a better quality if we did.
We are dealing with the imminent destruction of some of our values. Instinctively I am a pro-Marketeer in the negative sense, in that I believe that we have nowhere else to go. No alternative proposition has been put up. Any suggestion that we should have a free trade area with the United States or should extend E.F.T.A. or the Commonwealth is just not practical as an alternative. Therefore, if one accepts that purely negative standpoint, the only realistic alternative is to go into the E.E.C. But unfortunately the E.E.C. was not designed with that end in view. It was designed


in a European context and there are institutions both economic and political which are entirely foreign to all our experience.
The common agricultural policy was designed specifically for the purpose which the French envisaged If my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) were here, he would dub me a racialist. The E.E.C. common agricultural policy makes no sense in the context of Britain. My hon. Friend missed the point. The common agricultural policy finances those inefficient farmers—not because they are lazy—out of the housewife's pocket, whereas in this country this is an obligation on all of us, out of taxation. That seems to us the most socially just policy, and makes more sense to us and to the housewife.
We can all dilate about the political and social effects and long-term economic effect. The immediate concern is the housewife and the old-age pensioner. They make up the majority of voters whom the Government and pro-Common Marketeers have to convince. In the short term they must be protected so that in the long term their children and grandchildren will have a better life. That is a very difficult operation.
I have not time to develop the economic arguments. I believe that they are substantial, I believe that they have been overplayed, and I believe that we have not been told the truth about a lot of them. Why should we believe the right hon. Gentleman when he says that food prices will go up by only 2½p in the £ over each of the next six years? Why should we believe him now? The majority of the people believed right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite 12 months ago. Look how wrong they were. Look how they were taken in about prices, unemployment and regional policies. Why should they trust the Government now?
The decision that we shall be taking in the course of the next few months is probably the most important decision that has been taken in this Parliament for the whole of its 600 years. We have the minimum of information. We have a little rag of a White Paper. We have the Post Office deluged with superficial pamphlets, as I would say to delude the public—certainly not to argue in any

depth. We are as misinformed and perplexed in this House as the public outside and we are being asked to make decisions which will affect this country and the world for generations and maybe hundreds of years to come.
The Government do not think that they have got a mandate, and we think that they should seek a mandate. If they are so sure of their position, they should not be afraid to say to the people, "This is what we believe. We did not say that entry was imminent at the last election. We now think that it is. Therefore, before we take the irrevocable decision, we ought to have your consent". That is the most democratic decision that the Government could now take.
I have been in this House for a great many years. I have come to love the place. While one may argue about the mumbo-jumbo that goes on here, it is the most democratic and the most free-speaking assembly in the world. We have more public control over public expenditure and over what the Government do than any other elected assembly in the world. The Tory Party now in government is the party that believes in the sanctity of tradition. We have 600 years of parliamentary tradition which has evolved over the years and which is the envy of the world. We are putting it in jeopardy.
I was never more impressed than I was by the two speeches that we heard yesterday from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Both made very important points of principle. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the free movement of labour in the Common Market and compared it with what was likely to happen under our Immigration Bill. We intend to allow the free entry of Germans, Italians and French, and we intend to deny freedom of entry, unless they have a British parent, to Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians. Again, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian is not here, because he would have said that that was another example of my racialism. This is a fundamental principle which would raise echoes of sympathy from people all over the British Isles if it were thought that our Commonwealth partners were excluded and that there was free entry


to our erstwhile enemies in two world wars.
Important though that point is, it is less important than the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough, who spoke about the European Parliament. I look at our Parliament, with its shortcomings and its mumbo-jumbo of procedures. It is still the envy of the world. When one considers the non-democratic, bureaucratic set-up in Europe and remembers that we have to try to marry ours to it, clearly it is a big price to pay. It may be that the price is worth paying. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames alluded to this yesterday. If what we are doing will succeed in avoiding a third world war, it may be worth that price. But we cannot be too sure.
Meanwhile, I want to hang on to the sovereignty of this Parliament. Unless the Government are prepared to say, "We feel so convinced of our case that we shall have an election", I feel disposed, despite my predilections, to vote against them in October. Frankly, I shall be sorry to do that. But unless they are prepared to have an election, I am forced to the conclusion that their case is weak, that they are hiding a great deal, and that there must be something wrong with the proposition about which we have not yet heard. There are a lot of hon. Members in this position today. They feel that they have inadequate information. They have not been told enough.
I refer to the statements in the White Paper on regional policy. They comprise three or four little paragraphs. They affect millions of people in the United Kingdom, and millions of people in the Common Market too. The Scottish unemployment figures were published yesterday. We must have an announcement next week about the Government's policy on U.C.S. They will have to fork out some money to save U.C.S. There is no alternative. Let us assume that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry eats his own words and says, "Despite what I said about lame ducks, I am going to fork out that money". If there were another U.C.S. situation when we got into the E.E.C., could we repeat that performance? I doubt whether we could. It would have to sink.
I do not believe that we can look at these problems purely from an economic and commercial angle. They have social content, and this is what I find singularly lacking in so much of what is happening in the E.E.C. today. Therefore, I beg the Government to think carefully about what they are destroying and to ask themselves whether they are quite sure that the price that they are being asked to pay is not too high for what we are likely to get for it.

3.06 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I think that many of us have asked ourselves the question posed by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) at the beginning of his frank and fair speech. I hope that he will not mind if I do not go into the details of what he said.
We must get away from the opinion that French farming is not efficient, I think that it is extremely efficient. France merely wants to protect people similar to our farmers in the Welsh hills, the West Country and the Highlands. These are the people they are particularly anxious to protect, otherwise, French farming is efficient.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) is present. Both he and I served on the Local Government and Regional Planning Committee of the Council of Europe. The hon. Gentleman may remember that we paid a visit to Southern Italy to see the excellent job being done at Taranto, Brindisi and Bari and how the standard of living of the peasants has been greatly raised by the industry which has been placed in those areas. Perhaps I may say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), before he leaves, that the people to benefit in the Community have been the working class ; it is their standard of living which has improved. Their wages, on average, are £5 higher than ours and they have longer holidays. It is the rentier, the middle-class, who have not increased their standards. So if the hon. Gentleman is worried about the working class, I can assure him that their standards have improved immeasurably compared with ours.
I sympathised with the hon. Gentleman when he talked about alternatives, because we have not been given any convincing alternatives as far as I can see.


However, his alternatives made shudders run down my spine. Certainly the electorate have proved time and again that they cannot subscribe to his type of policy. One reason that he might like to consider for going in was that he might further influence other Governments in Europe, an influence which he has not got with his colleagues.
We are to have the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting in Malaysia, and all the countries of the Commonwealth, with the possible exception of Pakistan, will be attending. We have discussed the Common Market ever since the meeting in Nigeria in 1963. Therefore, the Commonwealth has had good opportunities to put forward its point of view.
I consider that entry would mean a much closer understanding between the countries of the world and that this would help towards peace. I think that the women of this country, if I may speak for them, are much keener about the prospect of peace and no future wars for their children to fight than about the price of butter.
Britain is in a unique position, we can be a very strong link between Europe, the Commonwealth and the New World. Britain is the only country which can take this lead, so this is one reason that we should go in. It would be an excellent job which we, and only we, could do because we have these major connections with these countries in helping to unite them.
On 23rd January, 1967, we heard a speech from the first British Prime Minister to address the Council of Europe, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition. His speech was very much appreciated by the then 18 members of the Council. He repeated what had been said at the Labour Party conference in 1962, and I think that it is important to remember what the right hon. Gentleman said :
The Labour Party regards the European Community as a great and imaginative conception. It believes that the coming together of the Six nations which have in the past so often been torn by war and economic rivalry, is in the context of Western Europe a step of great significance.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to quote what he had said in the House,

and I was impressed by his words, as were many others :
I want the House, the country, and our friends abroad to know that the Government are approaching the discussions …"—
that was in 1967—
I have foreshadowed with a clear intention and determination to enter the E.E.C. if, as we hope, our essential British and Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded. We mean business".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1 1966; Vol. 735, c. 1540.]
Five times during his speech the right hon. Gentleman said "We mean business".
If one looks at the letter written by : Lord George-Brown today in the Press, one sees that after making some criticism of the papers marked "Secret", he goes on to say
the terms the present Government have ; presented to Parliament do not significantly differ from those which the Labour Government would have negotiated and commended",
Because of that speech at Strasbourg many hon. Members were led to believe that action would be taken by the previous Government to join the Community, and I think that they will be disappointed at the attitude being presented today.
Furthermore, we had the opportunity of hearing Sir Hugh Jack and Mr. Norman Birk put the case for New Zealand. They were well supported by many Members from many nations, and I think that their views had a considerable influence on the Council of Ministers.
I was impressed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) as he gave us some positive reasons for joining the Community.
Like many others, I come from a low-earning area, and I think that going into Europe will help the South-West Region. I say that because, on 25th June, before all the Government's propaganda, a headline in our local paper said :
All set for Europe Push".
I will not give the names of the firms, but those engaged in fashions, machine tools, baby foods, gin, television and radio are all going to employ more people, and they say that they are optimistic about going into Europe.
I have my reservations about the fishing industry, but I hope that what was said


by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and by the Minister will help to resolve the difficulty.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What will the hon. Lady do if it does not?

Dame Joan Vickers: My right hon. and learned Friend has said that he will safeguard the position, and I am sure that he will.
On the question of sovereignty, I read the account given by Dr. Luns, until recently the Dutch Foreign Minister. He said :
Not everybody living inside the E.E.C. is aware of it, let alone impressed by it. Other aspects of one's existence or national life are much more in the foreground of many people's thoughts.
In a recent survey the Readers Digest showed that in Italy only 67 per cent. of people realised they were in the E.E.C, while 94 per cent. of those in Britain knew about it, so it cannot have done the Italians any harm with regard to their sovereignty.
Dr. Luns also referred to the gross national product, and this is important to note. In Holland, from 1958 to 1970, the G.N.P. rose by 77 per cent., in the United Kingdom the figure rose by 39 per cent. Industrial production in the same period rose by 146 per cent., but in the United Kingdom by only 49 per cent. He pointed out that food prices have risen by 57 per cent. in Holland and only 50 per cent. in the United Kingdom—but look at what Holland has to offset that by rises in wages.
The one thing I am a bit anxious about is the social policy under Articles 117 and 118 and the necessary harmonisation. I put down a Question about pensions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who replied :
The Government are already committed, as indicated in paragraph 90 of the White Paper … at least to maintaining the purchasing power of national insurance pensions and related benefits through regular reviews every two years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1971 ; Vol. 821, c. 40.]
The other countries, especially Holland, have better pension schemes than ours, and their pensions are tied to the cost of living. This is essential. We must also

think of the one-third of employed people who have occupational or private pensions. How are we to help them? People in the category of nurses for example who started work in a hospital on £1 a month and could not begin to qualify for pension until the age of 30 will get a very raw deal.
I should like our family allowances put on the same basis as those in the Common Market countries. If we are to have people moving from one country to another there will be difficulties if they are accustomed to a certain amount of money for their family budget.
Article 119 has not been mentioned so far, but it is very important to women. It says :
Each Member State shall during the first stage ensure and subsequently maintain the application of the principle of equal remuneration for the same work as between male and female workers.
That, regrettably, conflicts with the Social Charter, which speaks of the
right of men and women workers to equal pay for work of equal value.
This matter should be straightened out. I prefer to support what is in Article 119.
I hope to support my hon. Friends by going into the Lobby to vote for our joining the Community, as I think that it will be for the benefit of the British people as a whole.

3.18 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I am sorry that I cannot comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). I missed most of it because I could not hear it. I did not want her to convert me, if that had been possible, but I should have liked to hear her arguments.
The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) have referred to the necessity for consulting the people. I do not think that the hon. Member for Fife, West will have his wish granted that the Government should go to a General Election, for the same reason that they will not grant a referendum, because they know that the answer will not be the one that they require. It has been said in the House many times that a referendum is not in accord with British constitutional practice. I do not know whether going into the E.E.C. is


in accord with British constitutional practice for the very good reason that the mistakes and omissions of one Administration could be corrected by succeeding Administrations.
I want to speak as a Scot. Many hon. Members have gone out of their way to say, "I am not a Little Englander". No one will accuse me of being a Little Englander, a Big Englander or any other kind of Englander. I am speaking as a Scot, and as a Scot I know more about the Common Market than anyone else in the House, for this reason : Scotland went into a common market with England in 1707. There were people telling us then of the marvellous future ahead for Scotland, and look where Scotland is today. Even the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), very much a pro-Marketeer, objected the other day to Scotland always being at the end of the queue. The United Kingdom as a whole will be in that position if we join the E.E.C.
Hon. Members should never lose sight of the fact that we shall lose our sovereignty. It is no argument to say that no country can be completely isolationist these days. Whether or not a country can stand on its own feet is no reason to reduce what sovereignty a country has. Why should we surrender our sovereignty to Europe and thereby be at the whim of others?
The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) said that as a result of our entry the British tail will wag the European dog. What a hope ! If we try that we shall find that the British tail will be bitten off, and there will be no question of our having a chance to be twice shy.
The Labour Party is on record as saying that the country as a whole must be behind the Government in securing entry to the E.E.C, and that means having the support of the people of Scotland. Unless the Government can be clear that the people of Scotland are behind them, those who live north of the Border will be right to say that their interests have not been adequately represented in the negotiations.
I have been opposed to our joining the Common Market from the very beginning. I know what the loss of sovereignty means. Hon. Members who are pro-Marketeers may find themselves wringing

their hands in despair in a year or so and I give warning that we in Scotland will not be bound by any arrangements that are made in this regard when we have our own Parliament.
It would have been wise of the negotiators to seek Scottish representation in this matter. After all, Scotland will have no votes in the E.E.C. Luxembourg, with a population smaller than that of Edinburgh, will have six votes. Scotland, which has been a nation for a thousand years, is to be denied any control over its own affairs.
An interesting situation could arise. The majority of Scottish hon. Members could be opposed to Britain joining the E.E.C. Will the Government still contend that they are representative of the nation, including those who live north of the Border?
In any case, with whom will Britain be joining? These people are not primary food producers. They have no forestry to speak of, no citrus fruits and very little basic resources. They are simply members of a trading combine making a living by taking in each other's washing machines.
Vital Scottish interests have been ignored in this matter. It is significant that although arrangements, satisfactory or otherwise, have been made for New Zealand and the sugar-producing interests, the whole thing has been sewn up without satisfactory arrangements being made for our fishing industry.
Any reduction of the 12-mile limit would not be acceptable to the inshore fishermen, and this industry is far more important to Scotland than it is to England. The pro-Marketeers frequently say that the gap between the six and 12-mile limit is of no consequence. Before 1964 I played a small part in bringing pressure to bear for the limit to be extended, since when there has been a tremendous increase in the catch and in the volume of earnings of Scottish inshore fishermen. I fear that the Government have not borne in mind the interests of these people.
The argument has been advanced that what needs to be changed will be changed when we are in, and what does not need to be changed will not be changed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy when answering


questions about the Common Market agrees that the hon. Member asking the question can eat his cake and still have it. The line taken about the Commonwealth and the Common Market is that there is no conflict between the two. Of course there is conflict. We cannot have one unless we abandon the other, and that is what is being done.
The future of democracy depends upon small units. The greater the centralisation, the less good it is for democracy. The Prime Minister has said that this huge amalgamation of States will make for internal peace. The Treaty of Union between England and Scotland made for internal peace, but it did not leave the United Kingdom at peace. This European complex, of itself, not necessarily from any desire of the constituent members, will generate forces that might well be a menace to world peace. I notice that the Prime Minister did not say that the Community would secure external peace.
The young people of the world today, confused as they are on many things, are right to turn against this materialistic, technological age. The set-up on the Continent is geared towards that kind of thinking, and the young people are sound in their instinct to be against it. Whatever face it will have, it is a face which will become less and less human. I say to the Government, abandon this policy now, lest the lame duck becomes a dead duck.

3.27 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: First I declare my interest. I have agricultural interests in Australia as well as in the United Kingdom, fortunately not interests that are directly concerned with our entry into the Common Market, because I produce neither sugar nor dairy products.
We have heard from the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and others what happened to our relations with Australia during the negotiations. It is most unfortunate that the Australians feel that at the meeting of 11th and 12th May the British delegation completely changed the grounds on which it was negotiating and threw away the opportunities and undertakings that had been given for the transitional period to be

extended to Australian products coming into Europe.
At the same time, the Australians felt extremely hurt when the British Government called together all the members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement with the exception of Australia for the recent conference at Marlborough House. Only after three requests were the Australians eventually allowed to be present, and then only as observers. It is extremely important that we should maintain the best possible relations with Australia, if only because of our own self-interest.
The right hon. Member for Workington mentioned the trade figures in our favour between the United Kingdom and Australia in the year 1968–69. Subsequently, the balance of trade on current account, including invisibles, has moved even more in favour' of the United Kingdom, and it is now about $A680 million in favour of Great Britain.
Australia also feels that her case has not been put very fairly in the White Paper, where it is stated that her dairy produce represents only 1·1 per cent. of her total world exports. In fact it represents 30 per cent. of the products of 45,000 farmers. When we look at it in this way, we can understand why the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia was extremely worried when he was here. This is the present picture. It is a cause of great worry and friction between our two countries and something which everyone in the House regrets.
I ask whether my right hon. Friend would take some positive action now to try to put this right. There is no doubt that the Australian Government do not feel that they have any undertakings. They feel that they have been sacrificed in these negotiations. Would my right hon. Friend consider taking the initiative to open discussions with the Australian Government, product by product, to see what will be the effect of the negotiations which have already taken place and what safeguards there are to look after the trade that Australia has had with Britain and with Europe? If he would do this, he could open up a new era in relationships between our countries and could provide an opportunity for Australia to trade with the E.E.C., which would be beneficial to both Europe and Australia.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): May I reply briefly to that point? While I do not entirely accept what my right hon. Friend says about the history of the negotiations, because we tried very hard to deal with the problems which concerned Australia, it is regrettable that misunderstandings have arisen. It is important that they should be removed. I have tried to explain that the guarantee we got for commodities subject to levy is a blanket one and covers everything. I should be happy to have discussions commodity by commodity to ascertain where it is thought that there may be severe disruptions of trade and where we have an undertaking from the Community that they will take action where that is shown.

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall be brief. My first point relates to my credentials. At the last General Election I stood for the Labour Party's policy. I have checked page 28 of our manifesto, which clearly said :
We have applied for membership of the European Economic Community and negotiations are due to start in a few weeks' time. These will be pressed with determination with the purpose of joining an enlarged community provided that British and essential Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded.
Of course, there are at least two caveats on the same page in relation to the common agricultural policy and value-added tax. I shall come to those shortly. But I wanted my credentials to be clear because of remarks made last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). He said that he did not question the sincerity of pro-Marketeers but questioned their credentials. My credentials are on the basis of the policy stated by the Labour Party at the last General Election and I stand by that.
But even if a Labour Government had negotiated these terms, I should not be doing my duty by my constituents if I accepted them supinely. In this House I have a right to question. The first thing I want made clear by the right hon. Gentleman, who has responsibilities for agriculture, is his thinking on the future of the common agricultural policy. He has made it clear that he does not like it, and that is a view that many right hon. and hon. Members share. But what are

the futuristic possibilities on this matter? Will we move towards an agricultural policy in Europe that is more in keeping with the one we passed in the 1947 Act? I am not questioning the need to support agriculture but the economic necessity of supporting it in the way that the Community does. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is fully in support of the Mansholt Plan in relation to the development of agriculture post-1980? How much of the cost of that plan would fall on the British community?
Secondly, on value-added tax, the Government have been extremely evasive. There is some indication in paragraph 90 of the White Paper that they will protect pensioners and others on social benefits, but we have no assurance that a zero rate of tax will be placed on esential foodstuffs. There is statistical evidence to show that 40 to 50 per cent., perhaps more, of the old age pensioners' budget goes on foodstuffs. We can protect them at a stroke by having a zero rate of value-added tax on foodstuffs. Let us have no shilly-shallying about this matter.
The third point about which I have misgivings concerns the E.E.C.'s bureaucratic set-up. I have been a Member of the House for only a short time, but I have no hesitation in saying that I have come to love this place. There are many things that I do not understand about it, but on investigation one usually finds that there is good reason for them. Other countries are used to operating a written constitution. To marry our system in with their legalistic outlook would be very difficult.
I should not be a Scot if I did not refer to the question of regional policy. I say to those who are opposed to the Common Market that if they want the best spokesman I have heard against the Common Market they should get the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He is a world beater in convincing people that they should not join. What he said last night about regional policy was appalling. There are three paltry paragraphs in the White Paper on this subject. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said last night and the lack of assurance from him, we can have no feeling of security that regional policy will be developed properly in his hands.
May we have an assurance from the Government that they will produce the report on investment grants and submit the very detailed information which must be available to the Commission when the question of regional policy is discussed? May we have an assurance that there will be no further slackening of the industrial development certificate policy? If locational features are involved, may we have an assurance that we shall not get tied up with something which is more suited to the pricing system of the European Coal and Steel Community and that we shall not find that the social costs of siting an airport at Foulness will be connected with the question of a port and a steel works?
I realise that the E.E.C.'s regional policy is in its embryonic stages. I have a bit more faith about this topic than my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) has. He suggested that I might grow up on this issue. I suggest to him—and I am sorry that he is not here—and others, particularly the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), that we have to grow up and consider what is happening in terms of multi-national companies. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is disturbed on this issue. Multi-national companies have the capability of holding nation States to ransom. This is why I want us to be in the Common Market and not to be held to ransom by large companies which can pick the best places for themselves and offer the juiciest bribes in relation to industrial locations.
Joining the Common Market is a futuristic step, and we must be careful about it. The Government have not done their job properly in presenting all the information that we should have on the magnitude of the decision. In October the decision about whether we join the E.E.C. has to be taken. On balance, I support entry for some of the reasons I have given. But I have very little faith in the ability of the Government's economic policy to give us the necessary boost to take us into Europe on a firm and sustained footing.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I suppose it is rather strange to find, even after these days of debate, somebody still comfortably

sitting on a fence. I sit there for two reasons. First, I have had about 10 years experience of dealing with Europe and I know what it is like when one is thrown in amongst the Common Market countries ; my second reason is based on what I hope is a natural concern for the problems of my own constituency, in a town very much involved with inshore fishing.
If I may turn firstly to the problem of inshore fishing, there are still several questions which need to be answered. The first goes back several months to the point when we first put forward our proposals and heard what the Common Market would offer. I have never understood why we could not put forward the proposals of the 1964 agreement which had taken so long to achieve for this country anyway. It is particularly important that we should not be launching fishermen and their families into such concern about their future—the future for people who have no alternative suitable employment, not only in Hastings but in other typical inshore fishing towns around the British Isles.
I hope that as reassured as I was this morning by my right hon. Friend's statement that there will be the autumn negotiations, there will not only be negotiations to develop what he has already referred to but that we shall be looking at the technical details, the problems of net sizes and trawl sizes, the problem of how the Community——

Mr. Prior: I must stress that the details of net sizes, the sizes of boats and of trawls used—all those matters—are always and will remain within our own jurisdiction. There is no worry about that at all.

Mr. Warren: That is all right. It is within our jurisdiction, but we must be absolutely sure that the foreign fishermen do not come in and poach as they do so easily. It will need only about two weeks of the French and Belgian sizes of trawl to wipe out the industry of Hastings. It is necessary to have an ability to police that agreement and to deter these poachers. We have heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) say that poaching is not always on one side. On the other side of the Channel from my own constituency, the French and the Belgians


have entirely fished out their own fishing grounds and that is why they are looking so eagerly at ours. I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that this is of real concern to many people whose lives depend so much on fishing, and that they look to him for an assurance that they will be looked after in the negotiations in the autumn.
It is in connection with the style of these negotiations that I have another question on which I should like assurance. It is not solely in the area of fishing. It is about our total political ability to gain emotionally out of Europe that which so many people believe can be gained. I have been impressed by the way in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his team brought forward probably the best terms that anybody could have got from the negotiating table. I am very concerned that we should not be led on from that point by certain political and economic delusions that just because we are going into Europe it will all be all right. There is no evidence that this is so. Indeed, I have been extremely worried by paragraph 44 of the White Paper which says :
The effects of membership on British industry will stem principally from the creation of an enlarged European market by the removal of tariffs.
The dropping of tariffs will not be a solution in itself. A lot of theoretical economists have been talking about the expanding market and the bigger firms. There is no evidence that just because the market and the firm is big, an individual firm will therefore do better in a bigger market. Firms tend to become equal to the size of the market for their products.
There is no question but that the product price is important. We know that any reduction of tariff is a good thing. The argument that Britain is not big enough, but that the Common Market, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. are sufficiently big economically to be prosperous is completely denied by the size of Japan. What is the difference between Japan and E.F.T.A., making one more prosperous than the other? It is certainly not to be found in any indication so far given in the Government's case in the White Paper. I do not believe that the political veneer of the Treaty of Rome will salve British industry. On

1st July the Financial Times said that it was quite invalid to assume that we would absorb faster growth as a kind of infection.
Let me give one example. My experience in the aviation industry, collaborating with Europe, has been that the British contribution during the 1960s was to build up the French aircraft industry. In the 1970s we are all set to fulfil the next stage, which is to build up the German aircraft industry. It is interesting to look back at a document written in Europe and published in 1957. It says that apart from the French the only European competition that the British had to fear was from the Germans. Here we are all set, through the style of agreement which my right hon. and learned Friend knows very well, with the multi-rôle combat aircraft, to build up another country into a position of a competitor where there was once no competition.
It is not through political agreement that I can see the hope for which British industry is looking. I do not want that hope to be spoiled because political deals in Europe throughout the 1960s, and indeed in the early 1970s, have become albatrosses for the British aviation industry. It was such an albatross which gave France the most successful aviation industry outside the United States. Indeed, France is as limited as the United Kingdom currently in market opportunities.
The aviation industry is a typical example of what happens to an industry when all the barriers are dropped. If military aircraft are imported by other countries then they do not pay a tariff and if they are civil aircraft from, say, the United States they do not usually pay tariffs. This is supposed to be one of the leading industries which will benefit so much from going into Europe. However, 10 years' experience has warned us about the effect of putting too glossy a political argument forward as a solution. I look at the private enterprise firm of Marcel Dassault in France to see what can be done by a company supported by a Government dedicated to technology and the best use of educated people.
Let me point out what is going on today with regard to the multi-rôle combat aircraft. There is this collaboration arrangement between this country,


West Germany and Italy. Both Front Benches agreed to the proposition that the British industry had the capability and the capacity and everyone knew that West Germany and Italy did not and that the only way they could get it was by going to the United States, at the expense of British workers who would be put out of work. No one was more surprised than the West Germans when the British agreed to this. I am concerned at the willingness of so many supporters of Britain in Europe to exude so much faith when we bear in mind British competitive experience in the past inside Europe.
I want to come off the fence and I hope that I shall be able to jump in favour of Europe. But the assurances I am after must come from politicians and not from industrialists who desire to enter. They must be politicians willing to be more wily, more thrusting and more capable than we have so far been shown. Life in Europe will be very tough for Britain. Our politicians can meet this challenge but their duty is not only to meet it but to master it and to show that they can do so before the autumn.
I conclude on an emotional note which I had thought to discard as being something which should not enter into a considered judgment. My position has been involved, as it has been for so many who have spoken, not just because of the experience of the past but because of the experience of those who have gone before us. Already more than one million British men are in Europe. They had their lives ripped from them by two world wars. They left behind them much less able men, like myself, to decide whether their gallantry and the gift of peace which they bought should now be used in the Europe in which they lie. They gave us the time to decide. I think we are using that time well but we must not waste their endeavours, or their lives, for our decision will be one for them, as well as for the children of tomorrow.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), who has nicely said that he is still on the fence, would agree with me that as a rule it is not the arguments to which we have listened—and we have listened to many, very often good arguments

—which will force most of us into one or other of the Lobbies when the decision has to be made. Most of us have a deep-down feeling—a prejudice, or an emotion—either towards going together with other peoples, in this case our neighbours in Europe, or staying outside. Many extremely interesting arguments have been put forward, but basically, inside each person, emotional reasons are more likely to be predominant in the long run.
The hon. Member for Hastings expressed certain reservations, about which he has put questions. Perhaps he will be helped to decide those questions. On a more cynical note, the fact that public opinion seems to be coming round in the direction of entry may have an effect on him, as no doubt it will on all of us, whatever decisions we may have come to beforehand. For forty years—not like the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) for 25 years—I have preached world federation in order to eliminate the possibility of world war, and I am therefore unlikely to boggle at a coming together of the peoples of Europe ; on the contrary, I welcome it immensely.
There are three points to be made on this matter. The Community into which we are asked to go represents an attempt to create institutions to preserve and develop all that is best in Western civilisation—and there is a great deal that is good in that civilisation, which should be preserved. The existence of the Community will help to rid the world of the scourges of war and want.
How can we be indifferent to the fact that now. for the first time in history, France and Germany have come together willingly inside a framework that will make it much more difficult for them to go to war with each other? But do not let us be self-righteous about this ; they have not been the only two countries in Europe whose nationalistic quarrels have given rise to wars, and world wars. We should be in that framework, helping to make it strong and effective, and seeking to prevent Europe once more becoming a source of world conflict, which it still could easily become.
Entry into the Community will give a future British Government a chance to raise the standards of living of our people


to a height that would be absolutely impossible if we stayed outside, just as would be the case if any comparable country were to remain outside a like grouping.
I have been a little amused by the succession of economic arguments that have been put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Learned professors outside this House, and learned political professors inside it, have knocked each other down with a rapidity which has amused me a lot since I am not involved in their speciality of economics.
I do not know how many hon. Members in this House are like me in this respect. If I see arguments put forward by experts on one side being knocked down by experts on another side, then I begin to look at the people themselves apart from their speciality, in which I would not consider myself competent to be a proper judge. Looking at the experts who have come forward on the side of the pro-Marketeers, I feel that there is no doubt for which side I should plump. They are the people who have had the best of the argument.

Mr. Heffer: That is because you are pro-Market.

Mr. Mallalieu: It is because they are saying things which I want to hear said. We all do this—not one of us is guiltless on this score. There has been a vast succession of arguments about the regions, steel, the cost of living, and so on. I know whose opinion I would want to accept and, with all due respect to the fellow representative of my county, the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) to whose opinions I always listen with tremendous respect, he said that the suggestion that the rise in prices would be 2½p in the £ is nonsense. He thought it far more likely to be 500 per cent. of a rise—or at least somebody did—

Mr. Body: At least 20 per cent.

Mr. Mallalieu: I thought the hon. Gentleman quoted somebody else who thought it was a lot more.

Mr. Body: Sir John Winnifrith said it was 50 per cent.

Mr. Mallalieu: These sorts of things make ordinary persons sit back and judge the issues on prejudice and emotion.
It is upsetting to hear people talking about the Community as inward-looking. I do not think that anyone who has knowledge of the Continent and who goes about there would think that that was the case, unless he had a strong prejudice one way or the other. I think I would exempt my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) from this, because he made a sincere speech which was untainted by prejudice, although I did not agree with his speech. I find that there is in this anti-Common Market entry approach too much of a hotchpotch of nationalistic conceits and primitive prejudices against foreigners.
This is so absolutely divorced from what my party has ever professed to stand for that I would not hear of it and would not allow myself to base my own actions on such a foundation. There is a grave danger that this great decision, which I believe will be made, may yet be made with a certain show of reluctance by enough people to detract from the value of entry. I should like my party to come right down on the side of entry, because the Labour Party stands for those very things which are enshrined in the Community and which I believe will do so much for the good of the country.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — SECONDARY EDUCATION, BEXLEY

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

4.0 p.m.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: May I say how grateful I am that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided to reply to this debate herself? I am sure that her presence will hearten my constituents and demonstrate the importance that she attaches to the problem which I wish to discuss.
I am concerned solely with the impact of the new all-in scheme proposed by the London Borough of Bexley on the education of children in my constituency. I see on the benches opposite the other hon. Member concerned with the Borough of Bexley, the hon. Member for Erith and


Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). I am sure that I can leave him to deal with Erith's education. I am concerned with that in the half which comprises Sidcup, Lamorbey and the Blackfen area.
This issue has brought me more protests than any other subject, including the Common Market, on which I have been pressed since becoming the Member for Chislehurst back in 1950. I have never had such strong and such well-documented evidence from a mass of teachers who have felt so strongly about it that after deep thought, in their various areas they have put in two alternative sets of proposals to the local authority. I believe that pupils themselves sent representations to my right hon. Friend, though I have not seen them.
I realise that this must be a probing debate and that my right hon. Friend can do no more than take into consideration the protests that I shall voice on behalf of those concerned.
I begin by going back a little in history. Prior to the reorganisation of the London boroughs, my constituency comprised the very large urban district of Chislehurst and Sidcup, and our education authority was that of the County of Kent. We were served with a wide variety of schools to meet the capacities of the pupil population. Many of those schools were built post war.
As a result of the creation of the London boroughs, my constituency was cut in half, that part on the west side of the A.20 coming under the London borough of Bromley and that on the east side under the London borough of Bexley. At the time of the reorganisation, we faced the problem that our girls' grammar school was in the Bromley borough and that our boys' grammar school was in the Bexley borough.
At that time, I received assurances both from my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Social Services, then Minister of Housing, and from the then Minister of Education, now my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Boyle, that boundaries which cut across normal educational areas would not react to the detriment of the children requiring such education.
I have already submitted to my right hon. Friend strong protests, supported by

hundreds of parents, about certain aspects of education in the Bromley borough. Today, I deal solely with the effects on the London borough of Bexley, which have produced even stronger protests.
Let me say at once that I am not opposed to properly constituted comprehensive education as such, when it provides the basic principle that all the needs of all pupils of all ages and abilities can be catered for fully in any one of the proposed units under the system. My case is that the hotch-potch scheme being imposed upon my constituents does not provide proper comprehensive education, that it reduces the facilities and opportunities which the children of my constituents have enjoyed hitherto, that it is an aborted thalidomide of a scheme, and that it is not comprehensive education.
I affirm my belief that in this tiny island, having, as we do, to import half our food and with the exception of coal, all our raw materials, we have throughout the ages won fame and reward for Britain by means of our inventive genius. We can look to steam power, radar, penicillin, vertical take-off, nuclear power, and even the cables of communication round the world. These are the products of fine British brains. In my view, our greatest raw material is our brains, and we limit the development of the best brains in the country to their fullest capacity at our peril.
In this debate I am taking the boy's schools as an example. I should not like anyone to think that I am ignoring the equally dramatic problem of the girls, but, limited by time, I am taking this particular example.
We are justifiably proud of the academic record, the facilities and the contributions of staff and pupils to education in the community at the Hurst Road Boys' Grammar School from where, in eight years, 563 boys have gone to university, 145 of them to Oxford and Cambridge. They had been selected by that school on merit from all age and income groups. They had been selected from the widest possible spheres solely on their merit to benefit from the education which the school can offer. Of an original intake for the A-level courses of 1,020 in that period, it means that 55


per cent. got university places and others have joined colleges of education and technical colleges, some of which offer courses leading to a degree.
Hurstmere, our modern school, again with an outstanding staff dedicated to a different type of teaching, aided by more visual aids, by more practical work, and by adequate and fine workshops, has an outstanding record of bringing on the slower boys, of developing the best capacity of the boy who is good with his hands, a great record of encouraging them to leave after 15, and a willingness to transfer the bright late developer to the technical or the grammar school if his aptitude points that way.
Similarly, our technical school has been equipped with appropriate courses and it enjoys a high standard. These three schools, with other schools placed in Welling or Sidcup, are to be thrown into a new scheme of selection of entry from 11 to 14 and then from 14 to 18. I have failed to discover why this new scheme of 11 to 14 and then 14 to 18 is to be imposed on my constituency as one small part of the Division although it is apparently not the panacea for either Bexley or Erith.
I should like to seek advice from my right hon. Friend on an administrative point. In 1966 the then Labour council introduced a comprehensive plan for education over the whole borough. I understand that this was approved by the then Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short). On the attainment of a Conservative majority in 1968, this was withdrawn. Following the return of a Labour majority on the council three months ago, the present scheme was abandoned and notices were posted on the schools relating to the original 1966 scheme, but with substantial amendments affecting my division. That scheme was for all 11 to 18 entry. The new scheme is for 11 to 14 entry at five schools and 14 to 18 entry at two thereafter.
A new generation of parents has emerged since 1966 and a new intake of children has come on the scene. I am asking that today's parents on behalf of today's children should have the right to present their views to my right hon. Friend. Or can a council decision five years old, and subsequently withdrawn,

be imposed on an entirely different interested party?
Henceforward all entry goes to one of five schools from 11 to 14 whether they are equipped to deal with a grammar stream or not. This is wasteful of assets and forces upon teachers trained for specific streams a mixture of pupils where, even if they devise a new mean, it will be too fast for the slow and too slow for the fast. At 14, Hurst Road School will take in all entry. It will take at least a term, probably six months, to sort out and stream the intake. Half of that intake will be boys determined to leave at 15 or, with the increased age limit, 16, frustrated at being pitchforked into a new school. They will have a comparatively short period there. Some will be unwilling and some will be educationally unable, to use the advanced facilities which the school provides, and they will therefore be wasted.
Those in the 11 to 14 group, the potential grammar school stream and perhaps wanting a professional degree, will be in a school where there will be fine workshops and no fine labs. They will not see the fine labs until they move on at 14 to the higher school. At 14 budding craftsmen will lose the workshops which are provided.
It is all very fine sayings that this will be ironed out in five or 10 years' time, but the education authority has said that it has no money for these improvements, and I am talking about today's generation, about next year's intake. We cannot give back to a child five years later what it has lost in being unable to achieve the degree or craftsmanship which it could now achieve in the schools in my division.
Then, because of an outrageous line of demarcation, which runs roughly along the railway line from Sidcup Station, boys who could use the facilities at Hurst Road to the utmost are to be sent to Bexley and Erith Technical School, which is miles away, where they will not find the nine fine advanced labs, where no second language is taught, where there is no teaching of pure maths, where there is no teaching of applied maths, and where they can take only the course for combined maths.
Bang goes any chance of entry to Oxford or Cambridge to add to the


145 who have gone there from Hurst Road in 8 years. Bang goes any chance of being a scientist in the eight to 10 branches of higher science. There will be no Latin for the boy wishing to be a doctor or lawyer, and for those wishing to take English or history there will be only the choice of secondary places, in competition with those boys and girls who have had the opportunity of learning two languages. Because of the requirements of the universities, they will have less chance of getting places because the other boys and girls will be able to take with them every qualification towards a degree in history or English. They can take with them their two languages, which will not be available to a large proportion of students from my constituency in these 14 to 18 schools.
I defy any educationist to prove that this mean partisan scheme provides better education and opportunities than are at the moment provided for the children in my constituency, whatever their capacity. It can only reduce the purpose defined education which is successfully pursued at present in first-class schools with devoted staff in whatever group those teachers teach.
I am not impressed by promises that in five or 10 years this will all be sorted out. On any count it lowers the standard of education. It denies the next five to 10 years' school generation the opportunity to maintain the magnificent standard that we have had in Sidcup and Chislehurst. We cannot say to the would-be scientist that he can come back to school five years afterwards. We cannot redress the balance for a history or any other teacher five years after he has taken a secondary degree.
These proposals are opposed by all the schools involved. They are opposed by hundreds of parents whose children are now involved, and by the parents of children who will be involved in the future and want the best for them. I can say without fear of contradiction that the schools in my constituency are well above the average. I ask the Minister to ensure that in any new scheme this provision is not reduced, and that opportunities for children in my constituency are not and shall not be destroyed.

4.14 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith), on the thoroughness with which she has dealt with the effect on her constituents of the Bexley Local Education Authority's policies in the field of secondary education. I must also mention that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), is particularly interested in this matter, and has found time this week to receive a deputation raising the major issue which we are discussing in this debate, and also to speak to me about it.
I fully recognise that the historical changes in the organisation of local government, to which my right hon. Friend has referred—from the Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District Council within the Kent Local Education Authority's area to a splitting of the division between the London Boroughs of Bexley and Bromley, each a local education authority—add to the complexity of an already complex story. I think, from what my right hon. Friend said, that she realises how complex the whole story is.
The sequence of events with which we are mainly concerned, however, is that which relates to the fluctuations of policy of the Bexley Local Education Authority as a result of successive changes of political control. As the House knows, I have now discontinued the practice of the last Government of giving administrative approval in principle to nonstatutory plans for the reorganisation of secondary education. It had become quite clear that the practice of approving these non-statutory plans, which set out authorities' broad schemes for reorganising an area, had tended to create confusion about the statutory procedure under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, as amended, which alone provides the legal basis for any change in the organisational pattern of schools in an area.
This procedure requires that formal proposals be submitted to the Secretary of State in each case in which it is intended to establish a new school or to close, or significantly change the character of, an existing school. At the same time, public notice must be given of the proposal and a period of two months


is prescribed during which local government electors and governors of voluntary schools affected may submit objections to the Department. This statutory procedure provides the means whereby local views on proposals for individual schools may be fully taken into account before final decisions are made.
Moreover, I can give my right hon. Friend an unqualified assurance that, in considering statutory proposals, I can and do take into account educational and practical matters of the kind which she has mentioned. I know, however, that she will readily recognise that it would be wrong for me today to offer any comments on the merits of any proposals which the Bexley Local Education Authority may be formulating.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have quite a lot to say, nevertheless. What we have already heard in this debate provides, I think, further confirmation that I was right to decide earlier this year to confine my approval or rejection to statutory proposals from local education authorities. Clearly much of the present complexity of the situation in Bexley stems from the administrative approval and rejection of non-statutory plans under the last Government and, in trying to deal with the questions which my right hon. Friend has put, I shall distinguish clearly between the statutory steps, as distinct from the non-statutory steps, which have been taken at one time or another. My right hon. Friend referred to a number of those steps. I have worked them out carefully and should like to go through them precisely.
The non-statutory plan which was submitted in 1966 and approved in principle under Circular 10/65 in 1967 envisaged a mixed system of all-through 11–18 comprehensive schools, 11–16 comprehensive schools, and four 11–14 schools linked with three 14–18 upper schools. The authority submitted statutory proposals under Section 13 in respect of the majority of secondary schools affected by the plan, including the schools in my right hon. Friend's constituency, and these received approval under Section 13(4) in 1967 and January, 1968.
In July, 1968, the newly constituted Authority passed a resolution withdrawing

the plan with three exceptions which related to the Erith school, the two Crayford schools and the two Bexley-heath schools, but the Authority also resolved to take no further action with the intention to proceed with the reorganisation of these schools on comprehensive lines from September, 1969.
In December, 1969, the authority submitted a revised, non-statutory plan of secondary reorganisation which was rejected under Circular 10/65 in March, 1970. Now that there has been another political change, the parents of Bexley are faced with the implications of yet further changes of policy.
What is beyond dispute is that, since the approval in principle in 1967 of the non-statutory plan for comprehensive development and the statutory approval of a number of individual proposals intended to implement that plan, there was a complete abandonment of that intention. Now, the intention has been reborn. I rather expected to hear the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) say "Hear, hear" at that.
Section 13 was not designed to deal with a situation of this kind and it is not for me or any Secretary of State to decide questions of law as they apply to individual proposals affecting particular schools, but I can say what has been thought appropriate in any comparable situation elsewhere, and the view which has been taken of the spirit of the law as reflected in Section 13 in the context of the Act itself.
I think it is clear that the spirit of the law requires that any local opinion which may be critical of a local education authority's proposal should have the straightforward statutory opportunity of making itself known to the Secretary of State in the form of objections. This has always been true since the Section 13 procedure originated, but the Education Act, 1968, emphasised the importance attaching to the procedure of public notice, the main purpose of which is to give all those affected an understanding of what is afoot and a chance to object.
I think this is what my right hon. Friend meant when she said that there was a new generation of parents and children.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Mr. Wellbeloved rose——

Mrs. Thatcher: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have worked out every step, and I trust that he will allow me to continue.
A Departmental circular dealing with the provisions of that Act emphasised the desirability of authorities supplementing the text of public notices with explanatory statements in untechnical language where the full implications of a proposal might not otherwise be readily apparent to members of the public.
The passage of several years after the approval of a set of statutory proposals, without their implementation, has one or two obvious implications, particularly when the authority has, during that time, made policy decisions in a sense contrary to the approved proposals.
As my right hon. Friend said, many of the parents and children affected will be different and even informed members of the public may find difficulty in understanding the full import of the proposals against the background of the shifts of policy.
A situation broadly comparable to that in Bexley arose last year in the area of another local education authority in regard to proposals for the establishment of a comprehensive school. There, the authority decided to submit and publish fresh statutory proposals so that all those affected might have a full opportunity of understanding and examining, in an up-to-date setting, all that was entailed. Clearly the authority in question recognised the wisdom, in a complex situation, of placing the matter beyond doubt and giving precedence to the need to respect the feelings and opinions of local government electors in the locality.
This seems to me to be the attitude likely to be adopted by a responsible authority. I may mention that the other authority to which I referred, which issued fresh statutory proposals, was a Labour-controlled authority. I would certainly hope that the principles on which the attitude is based are those which all authorities would respect.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady, but a document has been published by the London

Borough of Bexley setting out the scheme in full detail and making it clear that every citizen of the borough will have full opportunities of making representations to the local education authority. On the last page the document says that when the public notices are issued in the early autumn of 1971 there will be an opportunity for formal objections to be made to the Secretary of State. The council is not concealing anything but is asking the residents of the borough, wherever they live, to take advantage of the arrangements that exist and are being made for proper representation and proper consideration of these proposals.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am in the position that I might have to make a decision under legal procedures. I can, therefore, make no specific reference to what might happen. Any local government elector has the opportunity to make objections which I must consider on a legal basis, as I must consider the educational and other matters to which my right hon. Friend referred. I am glad that that attitude appears to have been adopted by the Bexley Local Education Authority. I believe that it is the attitude that would be adopted by all responsible authorities.
I very much welcome the opportunity which this debate has provided to speak, in necessarily general terms, about a procedural situation which, although fairly rare, can arise occasionally from the fluctuations of political control in local government. It is very important to establish and to emphasise the principles which underlie the procedures provided by the Education Acts. It is these which will determine how a responsible authority, whatever its political complexion, operates those procedures.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I hope that she, the local education authority, her constituents and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford will find the general picture which I have painted helpful. I hope that other local authorities possibly in a similar position will also find it helpful.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.